Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:40:59 +, Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48:12 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
>>>
> I hope you're not serious that $# would make a good operator.
If you happen to know where I
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Seriously? You didn't know that $#x in perl returns the length of the
> > array @x, minus 1?
> I don't speak Perl. You know there are million of us who have managed to
> avoid it.
I used to use perl (though I was never an expert) and I didn't know
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:40:59 +, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48:12 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
>>
I hope you're not serious that $# would make a good operator.
>>>
>>> If you happen to know where I borrowed it from, it would be
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48:12 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
>
>>> I hope you're not serious that $# would make a good operator.
>>
>> If you happen to know where I borrowed it from, it would be pretty
>> evident that I wasn't being serious.
>
>Ooh, now I'm cu
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48:12 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
>
>
>>> I hope you're not serious that $# would make a good operator.
>>>
>> If you happen to know where I borrowed it from, it would be pretty
>> evident that I wasn't being serious.
>>
>
> Ooh, now I'm c
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48:12 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
>> I hope you're not serious that $# would make a good operator.
>
> If you happen to know where I borrowed it from, it would be pretty
> evident that I wasn't being serious.
Ooh, now I'm curious.
--
Steven.
--
http://mail.python.org/mail
On Oct 30, 1:30 am, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having a builtin len() that calls the method __len__
> seems (using your words) "not only foolish but wasteful".
But what about (for instance) having the bitwise not operator (^)
calling __bitwise_not__. Is that foolish and wasteful?
On Oct 31, 6:29 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:59:58 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> > Python considers len to be an operator for all intents and purposes.
> > Python chose to spell this operator like a regular function, but it
> > could easily
On Oct 31, 2007 6:02 PM, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 6:13 pm, Steven D'Aprano
>
> > What you have measured is a local optimization that is only useful when
> > you have a tight loop with lots of calls to the same len():
> >
> > Len = sequence.__len__
> > while Len() < 1000
On Oct 31, 6:13 pm, Steven D'Aprano
> What you have measured is a local optimization that is only useful when
> you have a tight loop with lots of calls to the same len():
>
> Len = sequence.__len__
> while Len() < 10:
> foo(sequence)
Exactly what timeit() does, a tight loop.
> But what
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:59:58 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> Python considers len to be an operator for all intents and purposes.
> Python chose to spell this operator like a regular function, but it
> could easily have given a special syntax to the length operation (for
> instance, $#x).
I hope you'r
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:14:41 +, George Sakkis wrote:
> On Oct 31, 8:44 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2007-10-30, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 30, 11:25 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAI
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:45:59 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
>> Thanks for the interesting note. I didn't know that tuples originally
>> had no methods. That made len mandatory, I suppose.
>>
> Only if you think tuples are a sequence rather than a record.
Even records have a length. The length of a r
On Oct 31, 8:44 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-10-30, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 11:25 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > This is a FAQ:
> >> >http://effbot.o
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-10-31, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Obviously it isn't an absolute thing: lists and dictionaries do
>> have other methods in the user namespace, so the decision to
>> keep len out of that namespace is partly a judgement call, and
>> p
On 2007-10-31, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously it isn't an absolute thing: lists and dictionaries do
> have other methods in the user namespace, so the decision to
> keep len out of that namespace is partly a judgement call, and
> partly historical (I think tuples didn't used to
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if I'm wrong about the performance benefits then I guess I'm
> still in the dark about why len is a builtin. The only compelling
> thing in the linked explation was the signatures of the guys who
> wrote the artible. (Guido does admit he would, "hate t
On 2007-10-31, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 8:44 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2007-10-30, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 30, 11:25 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAIL
On Oct 31, 8:44 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-10-30, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 11:25 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > This is a FAQ:
> >> >http://effbot.o
On 2007-10-30, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 11:25 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > This is a FAQ:
>> >http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-function...
>>
>> Holy Airy P
On 2007-10-30, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:25:54 GMT, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> This is a FAQ:
>>> http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-functionality-e
On 30 Okt, 15:09, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
[Language "OOness", hand-waving]
> I disagree. I think they *do* take away from the overall Object-Oriented
> nature of the language, and that is A Very Good Thing Indeed.
But everything is an object in Python: not
On Oct 30, 11:25 am, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is a FAQ:
> >http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-function...
>
> Holy Airy Persiflage Batman!
>
> Python 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Apr 18 2007, 08:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:25:54 GMT, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is a FAQ:
>> http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-functionality-e-g-list-index-but-functions-for-other-e-g-len-list.htm
>
>Holy Airy
On 2007-10-30, Eduardo O. Padoan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a FAQ:
> http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-functionality-e-g-list-index-but-functions-for-other-e-g-len-list.htm
Holy Airy Persiflage Batman!
Python 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Apr 18 2007, 08:51:08) [MSC v.13
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:11:58 +, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
>>> 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 and
>> introduce inconsistencies?
>
> No
Eduardo O. Padoan wrote:
> This is a FAQ:
> http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-functionality-e-g-list-index-but-functions-for-other-e-g-len-list.htm
Thanks to all for the feedback. I'm no language designer. I just see and
hear these criticisms and I wanted to think thro
On Oct 29, 7:59 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> > The inconsistencies arise, IMHO, if an OO language introduces
> > non-object types for performance reasons, after that gets wrapper
> > classes to wrap those primitives, and even later gets the abi
On 10/29/07, brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Will len(a_string) become a_string.len()? I was just reading
>
> http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
>
> 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 inconsist
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
> li
brad a écrit :
> Will len(a_string) become a_string.len()? I was just reading
>
> http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
>
> One of the criticisms of Python compared to other OO languages is that
> it isn't OO enough
Really ? IIRC, Python doesn't have primitive types, functions are
o
Bjoern Schliessmann:
> Is there any particular reason why it should be a method?
>
> [..]
>
> 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.
You said it. IMHO it really could be a *property*, say `
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:50:14 -0700, George Sakkis wrote:
> On Oct 29, 5:49 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> | why not a_string.len()?
>>
>> You are free to bypass builtins and call methods directly if you like:
>> a_string.__len__().
>>
>> But consider rewriting the following:
>>
On Oct 29, 9:35 pm, Michael L Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> brad wrote:
> > 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()
On Oct 29, 5:49 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just reading
> |http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
>
> which says nothing about such a change, except for one in the opposite
> direction: o.next() changes to next(o) which in turn calls o.__next__(),
> just as len
brad wrote:
> 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)
This is a great example of why list() needs
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> The inconsistencies arise, IMHO, if an OO language introduces
> non-object types for performance reasons, after that gets wrapper
> classes to wrap those primitives, and even later gets the ability
> to automatically cast a primitive into a wrapper class instance.
> Tha
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:26:06 -0400, brad wrote:
> 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
On Oct 29, 4:25 pm, brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Python is less thoroughly OO than some other languages, yes. The
underlying assumption, that being thoro
brad wrote:
> a_string.list() instead of list(a_string)
A string can be stripped, "lowercased" or split, but why should it
be able to be "listed"? IMHO, list is a conversion function to make
a list from something.
>> And to answer the question. In OO programming generic functions
>> are no less
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. No
"brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Will len(a_string) become a_string.len()?
No.
I was just reading
| http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
which says nothing about such a change, except for one in the opposite
direction: o.next() changes to next(
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 e
brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will len(a_string) become a_string.len()? I was just reading
>
> http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
>
> 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. And
>
Will len(a_string) become a_string.len()? I was just reading
http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
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. And
little things such as this seem to support t
45 matches
Mail list logo
