> Kirby seems comfortable in the Meyerist camp.
>
I think you might be reading something too sinister into "information
hiding" and are therefore against it.
The brutal real world truth is the client wants an API that works today, but
will complain if it doesn't deliver tomorrow, even if specs s
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Scott David Daniels
>
> This is close to what I meant. I dislike properties that don't behave
> as if they were attributes.
Not exactly sure what that means.
Seems there is a lot to this topic.
Kirby Urner wrote:
>>So I find that rejecting it as naïve is fundamentally unresponsive.
>>Art
>
> However in this case I don't think your views were rejected as naïve. On
> the contrary, your views permeated a sophisticated discussion of use cases,
> and design patterns more generally (s'been a
Yeah for naivety!
In the pretty widely discussed article:
"Python Is Not Java"
http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
"""
Getters and setters are evil. Evil, evil, I say! Python objects are not Java
beans. Do not write getters and setters. This is what the 'property'
built-in is
>Suppose you'd already published a Triangle class API and then discovered
>you needed more dynamism. The property feature lets you sneak in some
>methods without changing the already-published API and breaking client
>code.
>A lot of these lessons about robust software development come from group
