Thanks for all the comments. I will probably just go with the approach of calling the reset method from my __init__.
I guess what I didn't show (in order to keep the example simple) is that I typically have a number of start-up parameters that are passed into the __init__method that are set once, then I initialize some number of instance variables (attributes :) ). Therefore, I typically would do the "one time" initialization first, then call the reset method for values that would be set and reset each time the game is played. Thanks, Irv > On May 29, 2019, at 2:58 AM, e1000 <e1...@globenet.org> wrote: > > hello, > > having been a long term Pylint-maintainer, I'd advocate a more flexible > approach: > > On 25/05/2019 20:29, Irv Kalb wrote: >> The obvious solution is to have the __init__ method call the reset method: >> class Game: >> def __init__(self): >> self.reset() >> def reset(self): >> self.score = 0 > > I think this is the right solution, specially if the reset code is just > following the __init__ code. and this is what I do generally... >> That does work fine and I like it. But it breaks a general rule that you >> should declare all instance variables in the __init__ method. I use PyCharm >> for the development of these games, and the "linter" (over the right side >> scroll bar) always flags this as a warning that a variable like this is not >> defined in my __init__ method. >> I'm looking for a general solution that solves this. > > My general point of view is that it is more important to avoid the > nonsensical line like > > > self.score = None # ... > > than to obey exactly PyCharm or any other linter. In Pylint, there is (or > was?) a system to avoid warning messages, which in my opinion fits very well > to that kind situation. As once stated a former coworker, fitting too closely > to the rules will generate bad code. >
