Functions vs OOP

William Gill nospam at domain.invalid
Tue Sep 6 02:30:47 CEST 2011

On 9/5/2011 3:04 PM, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
> William Gill wrote:
>> Not to split hairs, but syntactically f(x) is a function in many
>> programming paradigms.
>> As I understand it functional programming places specific requirements
>> on functions, i.e.referential transparency. So f(x) may or may not be
>> "functional".
>> x.f() is also a function, but it is a member of the object x, is
>> referred to as a 'method' of x, and uses the syntactical "dot"
>> notation object"dot"function for identification.
> Functional programming is not about writing a programm with functions
> <snip>. This may cause some confusion.

It can, and it did.  That was the impression I (incorrectly) got from 
the documentation.  Which didn't make sense to me.

> (google it for more info).

I can, and I did.  That, and the answers I got in this ng are how I 
corrected my misconception.

> Your original post was about functions vs methods, which are identical
> except some syntax detail. FYI, in python x.f() is equivalent to f(x).
> In an OOP world one will prefer the x.f() form.
No, my original post was about how (based on the aforementioned 
misconception) the documentation seemed to suggest that OOP should never 
have free standing functions, only methods.

More information about the Python-list mailing list