On Sep 29, 12:08 am, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > George Sakkis wrote: > > On Sep 28, 2:29 pm, process <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I have heard some criticism about Python, that it is not fully object- > >> oriented. > > > That's not a bug, it's a feature ;-) > > >> Why isn't len implemented as a str.len and list.len method instead of > >> a len(list) function? > > > As Terry Reedy wrote, partly history and partly practicality. There's > > no philosophical reason why we write "len(x)" (generic builtin), > > "x.append(1)" (method) or "del x[i]" (statement). The latter in > > particular is IMHO a design wart; there's no reason for not writing it > > as "x.delete(i)". > > As a general rule and matter of practice, methods that apply to all or > most classes (or all number classes) have built-in functions that call > the corresponding special method (or C-level slot).
It would be easier to justify this rule if it was more clear-cut, and specifically if it was applied only to methods that are available to *all* classes (such as type() and getattr()) rather than the ill- defined "most classes". George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
