On Jan 21, 2:50 pm, "Russ P." <russ.paie...@gmail.com> wrote: > If pylint can check for private access violations, then in principle > someone could just add a run-time flag that would run pylint as a > preliminary step to running python. Heck, I am *not* familiar with the > internals of the interpreter, and even I could do that.
So why don't you? Why don't you set up a local command that does it for you? Why don't you add the check to your repo check in? Why don't you extend the object class in your site.py to provide the data protection you want? Why don't you enforce the use of that site.py across whatever multi-developer Python environment you're participating in? (You are -actually- working in such an environment, right, not just wasting our time in pointless conjecture?) Why don't YOU do SOMETHING other than insist that the community provide the solution for you? I always thought this was the major advantage of Python, that so much effort could be offloaded from the language to third party libraries. If there is such an urgent itch-to-scratch for data protection, where are the libs that provide such? There's a lot of funky stuff you can do with metaclasses. > Your mistake for being a moron. But it seems to happen regularly, > doesn't it. How much more of my time are you going to waste, loser? You keep saying this and you keep replying. You keep making outlandish statements and then get angry when people question you. I'm sorry that using synonyms for words you've written seems to anger you so much. Have you stopped to consider that maybe it's that very anger which is rendering you unable to entertain other people's arguments in this thread? That's my polite way of saying "you're an arrogant and condescending prick", by the way, just so there's no confusion here. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
