Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
bruno.42.desthuilliers at websiteburo.invalid
Mon Jan 26 12:51:28 CET 2009
Russ P. a écrit :
> On Jan 23, 6:36 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia <ky... at uh.cu> wrote:
>>> Makes *no* sense? There's *no* good reason *at all* for the original
>>> author to hide or protect internals?
>> My bad, sorry.
>> It makes sense... if the original author is an egotist who believes he must
>> control how I use that library.
> If the original author provides you with the source code and the right
> to modify it, he cannot possibly control how you use the library. You
> can trivially disable any access controls. But for some reason that's
> not enough for you.
> Has it occurred to you that some users might actually *want* access
Then they'll have to choose a language which provides it.
> Maybe some users want to actually use the library as the
> author intended it to be used.
And ? Strange enough, that's usually what happens - using the official,
documented API. Strange enough, it seems that Python programmers are
mostly wise enough to not break encapsulation (nor abuse any of the
highly dynamic features of Python) without pretty good reasons, lots of
thought and attention, clear documentation of the fact, and possibly
exchanges with the library author (or maintainer) to discuss the problem.
More information about the Python-list