[ruby-talk:01566] re: constructors and initiali(sz)e

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to comp.lang.misc as well.

Yukihiro Matsumoto <[e-mail]> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> Dave Thomas <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> |There are internal classes which don't call initialize? If so, under
> |what circumstances is that a problem to someone extending them at the
> |Ruby level?
> 
> some classes do not invoke `initialize' in their `new'
> method.  They are Array, Regexp, IO (and its subclasses),
> Hash, String, Thread, Class, and Module.  
> # I'm feeling something left.

matz:

Is this a performance thing? It seems like something of a surprise
waiting to happen.

> BTW, my poor dictionary and spell checker have only the word
> `initialize', no 'initialise' there.

Generations of British schoolkids are raised to believe that putting
-ize at the end of a word is an ugly Americanism (I know-I was one of
them [schoolkid, not American]). However, they are apparently wrongly
taught. Both the Oxford English Dictionary (I'm looking at the 1979
Compact edition) and the Economist Style Guide recommend -ize, and the
OED has 'initialize' as a listed word. There are exceptions--words
like advertise-but in general -ize is correct.

Regards

Dave