On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:50 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray@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. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia