[Python-Dev] Add a frozendict builtin type
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Fri Mar 2 03:06:21 CET 2012
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:50 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
> +1. Except in very limited circumstances (such as a security sandbox)
> I would *much* rather have the code I'm interacting with use advisory
> means rather than preventing me from being a consenting adult. (Having to
> name mangle by hand when someone has used a __ method is painful enough,
> thank you...good thing the need to do that doesn't dome up often (mostly
> only in unit tests)).
The main argument I'm aware of in favour of this kind of enforcement
is that it means you get exceptions at the point of *error* (trying to
modify the "read-only" dict), rather than having a strange
action-at-a-distance data mutation bug to track down.
However, in that case, it's just fine (and in fact better) if there is
a way around the default enforcement via a more verbose spelling.
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
More information about the Python-Dev