skipping __init__ and using exploiting a class member instead

[Peter Cacioppi]

On Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:44:55 PM UTC-7, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Is the following considered poor Python form?
> 
> 
> 
> class Foo (object) :
> 
>     _lazy = None
> 
>     def foo(self, x) :
> 
>         _lazy = _lazy or self.get_something(x)
> 
>     def get_something(self, x) :
> 
>         # doesn't really matter
> 
> 
> 
> I like this idiom for certain situations, just wondering if it will raise the hackles of other Pythonistas. 
> 
> 
> 
> I use this idiom sparingly, but sometimes it just fits the task at hand, I hear Guidos voice saying "use the Force" in my ear, etc.

To be clear, I use this when I'm subclassing something and don't need to do anything with the _lazy other than set it to None in the __init__. I like this idiom because it removes the risk of miscalling the parent __init__, and it's also quick and easy to code.

Yes there is a class member I am creating, but each instance has a distinct member. (In other words, I'm an adult, I tested it and it works, but I couldn't find anything in the Google indicating what the collective reaction would be from Pythonistan)