Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
kyrie at uh.cu
Wed Jan 21 18:55:42 CET 2009
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 09:52:01 pm Paul Rubin wrote:
> Luis Zarrabeitia <kyrie at uh.cu> writes:
> > > Whaat? Assuming a program is perfect unless a failure is proven
> > > is not at all a sane approach to getting reliable software. It is
> > > the person claiming perfection who has to prove the absence of failure.
> > No, no. I meant that if pylint works as its specification says it would.
> Oh, I see. Well, that would be ok, except Pylint is not specified as
> detecting the types of access that Russ is concerned with. It can't,
> for example, flag uses of setattr that might affect a particular
> class. That would take something a lot fancier.
And I doubt that the C++ compiler will flag the pointers running wildly
pointing to random memory addresses and accessing the data in there. I doubt
that pointer will 'respect' the 'private' keyword. I also doubt that the C#
or Java _compiler_ will prevent you from using reflection somehow to access
But somehow the discussion shifted from an optional requirement (giving you
the chance to explicitly use 'from lock import unlock; o = unlock(obj)')
to "it can't be done _ever_" (using setattr/getattr is as explicit as your
analogous 'unlock' function).
Btw, the correctness of a program (on a turing-complete language) cannot be
statically proven. Ask Turing about it.
Luis Zarrabeitia (aka Kyrie)
Fac. de Matemática y Computación, UH.
More information about the Python-list