Why does Python mix OO concepts and non OO concepts for operation s on basic types?
Roman Suzi
rnd at onego.ru
Tue Jun 11 16:20:00 EDT 2002
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Don Garrett wrote:
>Hans Nowak wrote:
>> Besides, while Python is object-oriented, that isn't the only
>> paradigm in the language. People coming from a functional
>> background may find the len() function more natural than a
>> method.
>>
>> YMMV,
>>
>
> That's one thing I don't get. Why wasn't len() added as a member to the
>various types during the recent rework that added so many other members to the
>native types?
...and what for do we need all those funny slices,
attribute assignments, ..?
a.set(b, c)
print a.get(b)
a.set_b(c)
is much nicer than:
a[b] = c
print a[b]
a.b = c
I also wonder why to contaminate a wonderful language with
all those <, >, &, |, ..., +, - ? Look, how nice these examples are:
a.add(b.multiply(c))
instead of ugly, Perlish, unOOPish:
a + b * c
...
I only forgot how will I do this:
map(string.split, s)
if GvR will deprecate string module...
Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
--
\_ Russia \_ Karelia \_ Petrozavodsk \_ rnd at onego.ru \_
\_ Tuesday, June 11, 2002 \_ Powered by Linux RedHat 7.2 \_
\_ "I can't use Windows. The cat ate my mouse." \_
More information about the Python-list
mailing list