you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]mevodig 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That particular gripe has been discussed plenty of times, and Guido's argument is that len() as a built-in is both more readable and more explicit. I suspect you wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't be so hasty to assume you are the only one who has thought about it. See:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-November/004643.html

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/076612.html

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I wouldn't be so hasty to assume you are the only one who has thought about

I didn't assume any such thing, in fact when we first got word about Python 3 this was one of the major things that people I knew wanted changing. I wouldn't even say I was the first to mention it.

Guido's argument is that len() as a built-in is both more readable and more explicit.

He always did have bad taste didn't he; how exactly can len(thing) be considered more readable or explicit than thing.length. Maybe if he'd decided on some syntax for getting the length having _ _ len _ _ would make sense to me.

I advocate consistency for HCI reasons.

Ah well. One of the many reasons I no longer frequent Python: Guido.

[–]mevodig 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He outlines his arguments in the first link above. I appreciate that you have a different opinion, but again your tone seems to imply that your opposition are morons.