You don't need to implement chaining for X.foo() to make sense. It's object-oriented syntax. If anything, languages like Python are the odd ducks here, mixing m

You don't need to implement chaining for X.foo() to make sense. It's object-oriented syntax. If anything, languages like Python are the odd ducks here, mixing magical globals (len(X) => X.__len__()) with plain-old OO syntax conventions. That Ruby also implements X.foo().bar().baz() is a weird thing about Ruby that can be very powerful, but is unrelated to the dot syntax. I feel like roughly half of Ruby programmers treat it as "Lisp but better", which leads to confusion about the OO aspects of the language.