Prototype OO

[bruno.desthuilliers at gmail.com]

On 2 avr, 20:46, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> "bruno.desthuilli... at gmail.com" <bruno.desthuilli... at gmail.com> writes:
> > Here the problem is more philosophical than anything else. Python's
> > philosophy is that most programmers are responsible and normally
> > intelligent, so treating them all like retarted dummies because
> > someone might one day do something stupid is just wasting everyone's
> > time. This is also why there's no language-enforced access
> > restriction, only a simple stupid convention to denote implementation
> > stuff from API. The fact is that it JustWork.
>
>     Additional Principles for C1X (new)
>     ...
>     12. Trust the programmer, as a goal, is outdated in respect to the
>     security and safety programming communities.  While it should not
>     be totally disregarded as a facet of the spirit of C, the
>     C1X version of the C Standard should take into account that
>     programmers need the ability to check their work.
>
> C - The C1X Charter
> Document: WG14 N1250, p. 3http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1250.pdf

Fine. But totally irrelevant here - this is comp.lang.python, not
comp.lang.c, and we *do not* (I repeat : we *do not*) face the same
safety and security problems as those existing in C.