brad wrote: > One of the criticisms of Python compared to other OO languages is > that it isn't OO enough or as OO as others or that it is > inconsistent.
If OO meant "everything must be a method" then yes, Python wasn't OO. > And little things such as this seem to support those > arguments. Not that it matters really... just seems that classes > with methods used in a more consistent manner would be more > appropriate in an OO langauage. Is there a reason that len cannot > be a method? Is there any particular reason why it should be a method? > a_string.lower() makes sense, as does a_string.split(), > a_string.strip()... why not a_string.len()? Just a fuzzy comment: lower, split and strip work specifically for strings and/or sequence types, and return a modified copy of them (or modify them directly, as with other methods like sorted or shuffle). len, OTOH, works for much more objects and returns some kind of norm that makes objects comparable and whose type is the same for all objects. To make a long story short: Most methods do specific things with objects; but len is a common function to get a simple property of an object. Regards, Björn -- BOFH excuse #164: root rot -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
