my_list = [1,2,3,4,5]
len(my_list)
# 5
The same works for tuples:
my_tuple = (1,2,3,4,5)
len(my_tuple)
# 5
And strings, which are really just arrays of characters:
my_string = 'hello world'
len(my_string)
# 11
It was intentionally done this way so that lists, tuples and other container types or iterables didn't all need to explicitly implement a public .length() method, instead you can just check the len() of anything that implements the 'magic' __len__() method.
Sure, this may seem redundant, but length checking implementations can vary considerably, even within the same language. It's not uncommon to see one collection type use a .length() method while another type uses a .length property, while yet another uses .count(). Having a language-level keyword unifies the entry point for all these types. So even objects you may not consider to be lists of elements could still be length-checked. This includes strings, queues, trees, etc.
The functional nature of len() also lends itself well to functional styles of programming.
lengths = map(len, list_of_containers)
Videos
my_list = [1,2,3,4,5]
len(my_list)
# 5
The same works for tuples:
my_tuple = (1,2,3,4,5)
len(my_tuple)
# 5
And strings, which are really just arrays of characters:
my_string = 'hello world'
len(my_string)
# 11
It was intentionally done this way so that lists, tuples and other container types or iterables didn't all need to explicitly implement a public .length() method, instead you can just check the len() of anything that implements the 'magic' __len__() method.
Sure, this may seem redundant, but length checking implementations can vary considerably, even within the same language. It's not uncommon to see one collection type use a .length() method while another type uses a .length property, while yet another uses .count(). Having a language-level keyword unifies the entry point for all these types. So even objects you may not consider to be lists of elements could still be length-checked. This includes strings, queues, trees, etc.
The functional nature of len() also lends itself well to functional styles of programming.
lengths = map(len, list_of_containers)
The way you take a length of anything for which that makes sense (a list, dictionary, tuple, string, ...) is to call len on it.
l = [1,2,3,4]
s = 'abcde'
len(l) #returns 4
len(s) #returns 5
The reason for the "strange" syntax is that internally python translates len(object) into object.__len__(). This applies to any object. So, if you are defining some class and it makes sense for it to have a length, just define a __len__() method on it and then one can call len on those instances.
I have read that this operation works in constant time. But how is that possible?
Given an array of length n, I would have thought that computing n would require accessing every element. In pseudocode, something like the following:
n = 0
for each item in array:
n = n + 1
return nBut that would clearly be O(n), suggesting that’s not how it actually works.
Can anyone shed light on this?