On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Gelonida N <gelon...@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. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
