Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au
Wed Jan 14 13:07:43 CET 2009
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:53:33 +0000, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:14:06 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:25:38 +1000, James Mills wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Russ P. <Russ.Paielli at gmail.com>
>>> wrote: (...)
>>>>> Give me one use-case where you strictly require that members of an
>>>>> object be private and their access enforced as such ?
>>>> You're kidding, right? Think about a ten-million line program being
>>>> developed by 100 developers.
>>> No I"m sorry this is not a valid use-case.
>> Why not? Just saying it isn't doesn't make it not.
> Because "developer" means people who don't mess with implementation
> details. So they respect the leading underscore convention. No use
> case for enforced access restriction.
O rly? *raise eyebrow*
Sometimes developers have to work around encapsulation in their own code:
Sometimes they do it just because they can:
And try this:
More information about the Python-list