Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Russ P. Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Sun Jan 18 15:01:15 CET 2009


Wow! That was an instant classic! I just have a couple of points to
add.

The suggestion was made (not by you) that data hiding is worthless
because it can be defeated anyway. According to that kind of
reasoning, locks are worthless because they can be picked, cut, or
just blown off. I know that the lock on my front door cannot stop
someone who is determined to get into my house, but I think I'll keep
it anyway. I'm just irrational that way, I guess.

As I said before, I don't know if enforced data hiding can be added to
Python without ruining the language (or if it can be added at all, for
that matter). But if it can, I think the cleanest and most elegant
syntax would be to add the keyword "private" or "priv" and use it
essentially the same way it is used in Java, C++, and now Scala. That
would eliminate the need for leading underscores, which I personally
find tacky.

Since new attributes can be added outside of the constructor, the
private declaration would also have to be allowed outside the
constructor and for existing attributes.

One more thing. If an airplane is going to flip upside down and fly
straight into the ground, the passengers may as well be nuns. They are
better prepared for the result.




More information about the Python-list mailing list