On 2 avr, 20:46, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Here the problem is more philosophical than anything else. Python's > > philosophy is that most programmers are responsible and normally > > intelligent, so treating them all like retarted dummies because > > someone might one day do something stupid is just wasting everyone's > > time. This is also why there's no language-enforced access > > restriction, only a simple stupid convention to denote implementation > > stuff from API. The fact is that it JustWork. > > Additional Principles for C1X (new) > ... > 12. Trust the programmer, as a goal, is outdated in respect to the > security and safety programming communities. While it should not > be totally disregarded as a facet of the spirit of C, the > C1X version of the C Standard should take into account that > programmers need the ability to check their work. > > C - The C1X Charter > Document: WG14 N1250, p. > 3http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1250.pdf
Fine. But totally irrelevant here - this is comp.lang.python, not comp.lang.c, and we *do not* (I repeat : we *do not*) face the same safety and security problems as those existing in C. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
