>>>>> Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> (S) wrote:
>S> Chris, I'm curious why you think that these Zen are relevant to the OP's >S> complaint. >S> Re explicit vs implicit, len(42) is just as explicit as len([42, 23]). >S> Arguably (I wouldn't argue this, but some people might) ints aren't >S> "special enough" to break the rule that len(obj) should always return >S> something. >S> (I don't actually agree, but some people might be able to produce a >S> coherent argument why len() should apply equally to all objects.) >S> Re errors passing silently, the OP doesn't believe that len(42) should be >S> an error, so that's not relevant. >S> And there's nothing ambiguous about len(42). len(42) should be 7.5 million. -- Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> URL: http://pietvanoostrum.com [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: p...@vanoostrum.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
