The Python standard library and PEP8

Emmanuel Surleau emmanuel.surleau at gmail.com
Mon Apr 20 08:05:01 CEST 2009


On Monday 20 April 2009 01:48:04 Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> The problem is, I believe, that people wrongly imagine that there is One
> True Way of a language being "object-oriented", and worse, that the OTW
> is the way Java does it. (If it were Smalltalk, they'd at least be able
> to make the argument that Smalltalk invented the perfect OO language 
and
> every change since then was corruption.) This is of course nonsense, but
> many people fall for it. "The way I'm used to is the One True Way".
>
> As far as str.len versus len(str), apart from saving one character, I
> don't see any advantage to one over the other. It really depends on what
> you're used to.
>
> It also depends on whether you see the length of a data structure as a
> property of the data, or the result of an operation ("counting") on the
> data structure. We often fall into the trap of saying such things as "the
> string HAS A length of 42" when what we really mean is "if you count the
> elements of the string we find 42 of them". I don't believe that the
> relationship between strings and length is a has-a relationship. I
> believe it is a property requiring a function (counting) to emerge, and
> therefore under OO principles, length should *not* be an attribute and
> Java et al are guilty of misuse of OO in making length an attribute.

This didn't quite make sense. Methods are "abilities" an object has. Why 
shouldn't a string be able to compute its length?

> If you don't agree, consider an analogy: think about what it means to say
> that "Fred has a height", compared to "Fred has a left arm". You can
> point to Fred's left arm, you can surgically remove it, in principle at
> least you could surgically attach a left arm to somebody who didn't have
> one. The relationship between "Fred" and "left arm" is most certainly a
> "has-a" relationship. But the same isn't true for height: you can't
> surgically remove Fred's height, and you can't even point to the part of
> Fred that is his height. The length of a string is like height.

As noted above, nothing would stop Fred from having the ability to 
"computeHeight()", though. I guess you could say that what I find silly is that 
String objects have a number of abilities, which:
- are more complicated than retrieving their own length
- most likely use len() internally anyway

And yet, when asked, it's not able to do something as basic as tell its 
length. This seems inconsistent to me.

Cheers,

Emm



More information about the Python-list mailing list