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

[Russ P.]

On Jan 23, 4:30 am, Mark Wooding <m... at distorted.org.uk> wrote:

> Suppose that you write a Python library module and release it.  I find
> that it's /almost/ the right thing for some program of mine, but it
> doesn't quite work properly unless I hack about like so... perfect!  I'm
> a happy bunny; you've gained a user (maybe that's a good thing, maybe it
> isn't!).  Now, I've hacked about in your module's internal stuff: how
> has this affected you?  Answer: not at all; you probably didn't feel a
> thing.  You release a new version with improved internal structure and
> my program breaks: how has this affected you?  Answer: still not at all.
> How did it affect me?  Quite a bit, but then again, I knew what I was
> getting into.  I gambled and lost; oh, well, that happens sometimes.

Was this library module released in source form?

If so, then why would you care that it has enforced access
restrictions? You can just take them out, then do whatever you would
have done had they not been there to start with. I don't see how that
is any more work than figuring out what internals you need to access.
Either way you need to read and understand the code.

Wait ... it wasn't released in source form? Then how would you even
know what internals you need to access? And why would you use
something that goes against your philosophy of openness anyway?