Method Underscores?

[Hans Nowak]

Chris S. wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
> 
>> In terms of .len() vs .__len__(), it is not supposed to be called
>> directly by user code; __len__() is called indirectly by the len()
>> builtin (and similarly for the other __<op>__() methods, check common
>> spellings in the operator module).
> 
> I realize that. My point is why? Why is the default not object.len()? 
> The traditional object oriented way to access an object's attribute is 
> as object.attribute. For those that are truly attached to the antiquated 
> C-style notation, I see no reason why method(object) and object.method() 
> cannot exist side-by-side if need be. 

Python is a multi-paradigm language.  It supports OO, but also 
imperative and functional styles.  There is nothing "antiquated" about 
the len() notation, it's simply a different style.

Admittedly, it has been there from the very beginning, when not every 
built-in object had (public) methods, so obj.len() was not an option 
back then.

> Using method(object) instead of 
> object.method() is a throwback from Python's earlier non-object oriented 
> days, 

There were no such days.  Python has always been object-oriented.

> and something which should be phased out by p3k. Personally, I'd 
> like to see the use of underscores in name-mangling thrown out 
> altogether, as they "uglify" certain code and have no practical use in a 
> truly OO language, but I'm sure that's a point many will disagree with 
> me on.

I don't know what "truly OO" is.  It appears that every language 
designer has his own ideas about that.  Hence, Java's OO is not the same 
as C++'s, or Smalltalk's, or Self's, or CLOS's, or...

I suppose it might be clearer if one could write

def +(self, other):
     ...

but then again it might not.  I personally don't have a problem with 
__add__ and friends.

--Hans