> >Allowing for procedural-style programming does not mean that a language > >does not implement (even imperfectly) an OO paradigm. > > "Allowing" is the wrong term here. Python absolutely encourages a > straightforward procedural style when appropriate; unlike Java, there is > no attempt to force object orientation everywhere. Appealing to Python's > "object-oriented" nature when arguing about design decisions and ignoring > the other programming styles it supports is an indicator that you don't > really know Python very well.
I don't pretend to :) > Also, my code sample was itself a trick question. Python has *dynamic* > object orientation (just as the blurb says), and square() will work > on any object with a __mul__() method (through the ``*`` syntax), just as > len() works on any object with a __len__() method. So my code > demonstrates the way Python's programming styles interleave with each > other (throw in a listcomp to complete the set). This is what Carl Banks was saying below (that getting the length of something was generic operation)... Well, I suppose it sorts of make sense. I had the feeling that Python had been moving from a more procedural kind of language to a more object-oriented one (by having the "everything be an object"). But I'm beginning the see the logic in having a len() function (as opposed to a design wart). Thank you, Emm -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
