Python design philosophy

[Grant Edwards]

In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.1000628105812.1967C-100000 at condor.ee.washington.edu>, Steve Juranich wrote:

>I am *brand* new to python (as of Sunday), and I just got to
>the section in the tutorial about classes.  I was wondering why
>there really isn't such an idea as a "private" member of
>classes?  I understand that members can be hidden, but not
>really protected from the user.

We Python programmers are much more polite than C++
programmers. Just give us a hint that we should leave something
alone, and we will. No need to lock things up in a box if
nobody's trying to steal them.  Apparently C++ programmers are
an untrustworthy lot, and you've got to keep everything under
lock and key.  ;)

>I was wondering what the benefit of this would be?  Wouldn't it
>open the possibility of security holes?

Security holes?  A program is always vulnerable to being proken
by the person writing it.  Private members can't protect a
program from the programmer.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  NANCY!! Why is
                                  at               everything RED?!
                               visi.com