>
> Unsafe has also been proposed. I do not like this either because it is
> not accurate. Simply because something dangerous, foolish or stupid can
> be done using this method type does not mean it will be. Are we to label
> all objects "unsafe" simply because of the capacity of harm? Safety is
> in the hands of the programer.
I agree with this vehemently :) Would you want to use "unsafe C++"
or "unsafe Java"? I think "restricted" and "unrestricted" are
clear and concise. This is not about "safety" per se, but about
capabilities.
Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Engineer 540.371.6909
Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com
_______________________________________________
Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
