On Tuesday 20 January 2009 05:00:34 am Paul Rubin wrote: > Luis Zarrabeitia <ky...@uh.cu> writes: > > No wonder you can't get Bruno's point. For the second, static checks > > to prevent accidents, you have pylint. For the first, not only you > > are using the wrong tool, but you are barking at python for not > > having it. Assuming that pylint is perfect (big assumption, but it > > is up to you to prove where it fails), > > 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. Russ says (or seems to say, I don't know, I'm confused already) that it is not good enough, that what pylint says it does is not what he wants (otherwise, this subthread would have died a long time ago). So, assuming that pylint works as specified (its up to "you" to find out if it doesn't and file bugreports about it, just like you would do if you find out that the static-checker for your enforced-static-checks-language is buggy), what would be the difference between only accepting/running "pylint-authorized code" and the enforced hiding you desire? Sorry, I didn't realize that perfect was a too strong word for that. "I speaks english bad" :D Cya! -- Luis Zarrabeitia (aka Kyrie) Fac. de Matemática y Computación, UH. http://profesores.matcom.uh.cu/~kyrie -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
