operator module functions

Ian Kelly ian.g.kelly at gmail.com
Wed Oct 8 23:23:18 CEST 2014

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Gelonida N <gelonida at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 9:09 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 10/8/2014 6:57 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> According to the documentation, operator.__add__ is the "official"
>>> function,
>>> and operator.add is just there for convenience.
>> You are paraphrasing "The function names are those used for special
>> class methods; variants without leading and trailing __ are also
>> provided for convenience."  But then there is the following:
>> 10.3.1. Mapping Operators to Functions
>> This table shows how abstract operations correspond to operator symbols
>> in the Python syntax and the functions in the operator module.
>> Operation     Syntax     Function
>> Addition     a + b     add(a, b)
>> etc, using the 'convenient' names. I would like to deprecate and
>> eventually remove the dunder names.  To me, the duplication is not
>> 'convenient'.
> I'd be curious about a proposal to obsolete the double underscore functions
> and just keep operator.add or to just keep the operator +
> For me they seem rather distinct, though they are interchangable in certain
> situations.
> Perhaps I got something wrong, but all dunder functions are 'magic'
> functions. Many of them mostly should ne used when when overloading
> behaviour or when creating a class which should implement operators.

This isn't about the dunder *method* names. It's about the naming of
the functions in the operator module, e.g. having both operator.add
and operator.__add__ that are two names for the same function.

More information about the Python-list mailing list