On Jun 2, 3:04 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 2, 4:50 pm, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 6:41 am, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You are not realizing that only useful(**) thing about data hiding is > > > that some code has access to the data, other code does not. If you > > > "hide" data equally from everyone it's just a useless spelling change. > > > I think you're missing the point. > > Well that's nice: you're accusing me of missing the point after having > quoted something I wrote as if it represented by own views, even > though I footnoted it and said I was only doing it for the sake of > argument. Perhaps, outside this discussion, I am totally getting "the > point". > > I can't tell, though, because I read your post twice and I have no > idea what you consider "the point" to be.
> Best as I can tell you are claiming that data hiding isn't important, > but then you go on to imply Python is blemished because it doesn't > hide data. It really makes no sense: perhaps you can help us out by > giving us an example of something that illustrates what you're saying? I think I made my point abundantly clear. I said that rigorously denied access to encapsulated data is not important, but a clear specification of what is intended for the client and what is intended for internal use *is* important. And an ugly naming convention for variable and function names is not the best way to do it. I suggest you ask yourself why C++, Java, Ada, and probably most other "object-oriented" languages, have encapsulation or "data hiding." And no, I am not claiming that *every* application written in Python needs it, but certainly *some* could benefit from it. > (FWIW, my actual view on the matter is I don't give a lick about data > hiding or marking internals.) What kind of programming do you do? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list