brad a écrit : > Rob Wolfe wrote: > >> I wonder why people always complain about `len` function but never >> about `iter` or `pprint.pprint`? :) > > Not complaining. len is simple and understandable and IMO fits nicely > with split(), strip(), etc... that's why I used it as an example, but > list(), etc. could be used as examples as well: > > a_string.list() instead of list(a_string)
Oh, fine. And a_string.tuple(), a_string.int(), a_string.this(), a_string.that() etc ? In case you don't know, list is a type, not a function !-) >> And to answer the question. In OO programming generic functions >> are no less important than classes and objects. > > Do they not take away from the OOness of the overall language Why so ? > and > introduce inconsistencies? The monotonic approach to callables in Python (I mean: functions are callable objects, classes are callable objects, so instanciation and function call have the exact same syntax - which let you decouple interface from implementation) is another way to be consistent. because you can switch from type to factory function (or from closure to callable object, etc) back and forth without breaking client code. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
