On Wednesday 04 February 2009 10:53:54 am Russ P. wrote: > On Feb 4, 5:35 am, Luis Zarrabeitia <ky...@uh.cu> wrote: > > Quoting "Russ P." <russ.paie...@gmail.com>: > > This analogy is nonsense. There is no way you will execute code on my > > system if I don't authorize it, regardless of how "public" are the > > variables declared in my code. No one will execute code on _your_ system > > either, without your authorization. That puts you in a different > > position: you can easily _check_ that everything is alright before > > executing, whereas in the office example, it cannot be done. > > I don't follow your point, [...] > The locks on the doors are analogous to enforced access restrictions.
And that is my point, nothing more, nothing less. They aren't analogous. I know a bit of python, and a bit of programming, and I think you do too. If you can't make your point without an analogy, isn't it perhaps that your point is not transferable from the analogy to the python context where you are trying to apply it?. You can control everything that happens in your systems, whatever those systems may be. There are no locks, no offices, no employees going unchecked. You can decide, at any time you want, if the code you are about to run meets your policies. The particular one you are talking about, the "data hiding", can be easily checked. By you, by the QA team, by a computer, by an automated system, by your own pseudo python interpreter that will run pylint against the code before trying to run it. Insert that into your office analogy, and maybe then situations will be a little more analogous. But keep in mind that the only difference between what you claim to want and what you currently have, is that _you_ (not me) can decide whether to use it or not. -- Luis Zarrabeitia (aka Kyrie) Fac. de Matemática y Computación, UH. http://profesores.matcom.uh.cu/~kyrie -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
