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

[Mark Wooding]

"Russ P." <Russ.Paielli at gmail.com> writes:

> Rather than waste more time replying to your post, Let me just refer
> you to an excellent post that you may have missed earlier in this
> thread by Mr. D'Aprano:

I've responded to that now.  (Steven and I can't even agree on a
description for simple parts of Python semantics: why should we agree on
this?)

But I note that you've cunningly avoided responding to my remark that
it's a mistake to conflate the module and class systems.  (I think only
Common Lisp gets this right, because it can use its package system to
manage the names of class and instance slots and generic functions.)

Besides, it's not just classes that have internal parts.  Python is not
Java: not all functionality is in classes.  The proposals I've seen do
nothing for internal variables or functions at module level.

-- [mdw]