Disclaimer

The content of this blog is my personal opinion only. Although I am an employee - currently of Nvidia, in the past of other companies such as Iagination Technologies, MIPS, Intellectual Ventures, Intel, AMD, Motorola, and Gould - I reveal this only so that the reader may account for any possible bias I may have towards my employer's products. The statements I make here in no way represent my employer's position, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of my employer. In fact, this posting may not even represent my personal opinion, since occasionally I play devil's advocate.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Why does Python use methods for some functionality (e.g. list.index()) but functions for other (e.g. len(list))?

Why does Python use methods for some functionality (e.g. list.index()) but functions for other (e.g. len(list))?: "For some operations, prefix notation just reads better than postfix — prefix (and infix!) operations have a long tradition in mathematics which likes notations where the visuals help the mathematician thinking about a problem. "
Semi-agreement.

I like readable and familiar notations.  I like notations familiar from math.

But I note that math also has postfix notations, such as factorial n!. Double factorial or involutions n!!. n# - commonly product of primes up to n. I argue that % is a postfix operator (that divides by 100).

And how about situations where the operator symbols surround their arguments: absolute value and cardinality |a|.  Also the open/closed interval notations (lo,hi) [lo,hi] [lo,hi).  Let alone ]a,b(, etc.

Arguably the complement of a set A^C is a postfix operator - but really is is a superscript operator.) Math also makes great use of two dimensions, subscripts and subscripts, both to left and right.  (

Myself, I prefer the approach - I think it was Algol-68 - where an operator could be applied both prefix or postfix (and occasionally infix, and other fixes).

To apply a function f to an argument value x, write

prefix

f :- x
postfix

x -: f
Above I have used :- and -: as my function apply operators, deliberately using unfamiliar notation. Familiar notation might be

f . x
or simply putting things next to each other

f x
in published math, usually in different fonts (which are essentially a type system).

To apply a function f to an argument list (x,y), write

prefix

f :- (x,y)
postfix

(x,y) -: f
infix

x --: f :-- y
To apply a function f to an argument list (x,y,z,...), write

prefix

f :- (x,y,z,...)
I myself don't like SmallTalk or AppleTalk like polyfix
f: x: xval y: yval z: zval
at least not beyond keyword parameters
f :- (x=xval, y=yval, z=zval, ...)

With the usual elision and shortenings

prefix

f :- x
==> f. x
==> f of x
==> f(x)

postfix

x -: f
==> x's f
===> x | f    (stretching to use a UNIX-like pipe notation)
infix

x --: f :-- y
==> x .f. y
===> x .+. y
==> x + y     (if the operator f or + is syntactically defined to be infix)

I suppose that allowing different *fixes for the same function goes against Python's "there should be only one way to do it" philosophy.