Так, если у вас есть объект `something` (который может _не_ быть функцией) и вы можете "вызвать" его (выполнить) как:

```Python
something()
```

или

```Python
something(some_argument, some_keyword_argument="foo")
```

в таком случае он является "вызываемым".

## Классы как зависимости

Вы можете заметить, что для создания экземпляра класса в Python используется тот же синтаксис.

Например:

```Python

파이썬에서의 "**호출 가능**"은 파이썬이 함수처럼 "호출"할 수 있는 모든 것입니다.

따라서, 만약 당신이 `something`(함수가 아닐 수도 있음) 객체를 가지고 있고,

```Python
something()
```

또는

```Python
something(some_argument, some_keyword_argument="foo")
```

상기와 같은 방식으로 "호출(실행)" 할 수 있다면 "호출 가능"이 됩니다.

## 의존성으로서의 클래스

파이썬 클래스의 인스턴스를 생성하기 위해 사용하는 것과 동일한 문법을 사용한다는 걸 알 수 있습니다.

예를 들어:

```Python
class Cat:
    def __init__(self, name: str):

   *
   * <pre>{@code
   * static final ImmutableTable<Integer, Character, String> SPREADSHEET =
   *     new ImmutableTable.Builder<Integer, Character, String>()
   *         .put(1, 'A', "foo")
   *         .put(1, 'B', "bar")
   *         .put(2, 'A', "baz")
   *         .buildOrThrow();
   * }</pre>
   *
   * <p>By default, the order in which cells are added to the builder determines the iteration

```Python
something()
```

oder

```Python
something(some_argument, some_keyword_argument="foo")
```

dann ist das ein „Callable“ (ein „Aufrufbares“).

## Klassen als Abhängigkeiten

Möglicherweise stellen Sie fest, dass Sie zum Erstellen einer Instanz einer Python-Klasse die gleiche Syntax verwenden.

	err      error
}{
	{"", 0, []string{""}, io.EOF},
	{"a\x00", 0, []string{"a\x00"}, nil},
	{"abbbaaaba", 'b', []string{"ab", "b", "b", "aaab"}, nil},
	{"hello\x01world", 1, []string{"hello\x01"}, nil},
	{"foo\nbar", 0, []string{"foo\nbar"}, io.EOF},
	{"alpha\nbeta\ngamma\n", '\n', []string{"alpha\n", "beta\n", "gamma\n"}, nil},
	{"alpha\nbeta\ngamma", '\n', []string{"alpha\n", "beta\n", "gamma"}, io.EOF},
}

 * when {@code compare} is called on the above ordering:
 *
 * <ol>
 *   <li>First, if only one {@code Foo} is null, that null value is treated as <i>greater</i>
 *   <li>Next, non-null {@code Foo} values are passed to {@code getBarFunction} (we will be
 *       comparing {@code Bar} values from now on)

    }
    assertNoMorePermutations(permutations);
  }

  public void testToStringImplWithNullEntries() throws Exception {
    List<@Nullable String> list = Lists.newArrayList();
    list.add("foo");
    list.add(null);

    assertEquals(list.toString(), Collections2.toStringImpl(list));
  }

     * LF<? extends @Nullable V>. That might be better: There's currently no difference between the
     * outputs users get when calling this with <Foo> and calling it with <@Nullable Foo>. The only
     * difference is that calling it with <Foo> won't work when an input Future has a @Nullable
     * type. So why even make that error possible by giving callers the choice?
     *

  }

  public void testRemoveFromStringHeap() {
    MinMaxPriorityQueue<String> mmHeap =
        rawtypeToWildcard(MinMaxPriorityQueue.expectedSize(5)).create();
    Collections.addAll(mmHeap, "foo", "bar", "foobar", "barfoo", "larry", "sergey", "eric");
    assertTrue("Heap is not intact initially", mmHeap.isIntact());
    assertEquals("bar", mmHeap.peek());
    assertEquals("sergey", mmHeap.peekLast());

 | | <<<$\{java.home\}>>> |
*----+------+------+
| <<<*>>> | User properties | <<<$\{foo\}>>> |
*----+------+------+
| <<<env.*>>>\
<<<*>>> | environment variables | <<<$\{env.PATH\}>>> |
*----+------+------+