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

Russ P. Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Wed Jan 21 05:50:38 CET 2009


On Jan 20, 8:26 pm, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 1:18 pm, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Since when is no one is allowed to suggest a potential improvement to
> > a product unless they are willing to implement it themselves? Imagine
> > what the world would be like if such a rule applied to all products.
>
> It wasn't the suggestion so much as the claim that integration of the
> behaviour was "relatively easy". Everything is "relatively easy" when
> you're not the one doing it.

Here's what I wrote:

If pylint can check access violations, then it seems to me that
someone (who is familiar with the internals of the Python interpreter)
should be able to integrate that feature into Python itself relatively
easily.

If pylint can check for private access violations, then in principle
someone could just add a run-time flag that would run pylint as a
preliminary step to running python. Heck, I am *not* familiar with the
internals of the interpreter, and even I could do that.

> My mistake for using "trivial" instead, I didn't realise it would trip
> up your pedantry.

Your mistake for being a moron. But it seems to happen regularly,
doesn't it. How much more of my time are you going to waste, loser?



More information about the Python-list mailing list