On Jan 25, 10:04 am, Mark Wooding <m...@distorted.org.uk> wrote: > "Russ P." <russ.paie...@gmail.com> writes: > > Calling a one-word change a "fork" is quite a stretch, I'd say. > > I wouldn't. I've forked a project P if I've made a different version of > it which isn't going to be reflected upstream. Now I've got to maintain > my fork, merging in changes from upstream as they happen, and upgrading > all the things which use my new version; if I want to distribute my > program M to other people, they'll also need my forked version of > whatever. Now suppose that two programs A and B both require one-word > changes in P: there's a combinatorial explosion of little patches which > need to be managed. > > A fork is a fork, regardless of how big the change is. The problem with > a fork is the maintenance problem it entails.
Not really. A "fork" is something that *diverges* from the original. That means the differences *grow* over time. In this case, the differences will not grow over time (unless you access more private attributes). As I pointed out before, you don't even need to keep track of the changes you made. You will be automatically reminded as soon as you get a new version of the library and try to use it (again, assuming that your tests provide sufficient coverage and the attribute is not changed to public). > >> > Has it occurred to you that some users might actually *want* access > >> > controls? Maybe some users want to actually use the library as the > >> > author intended it to be used. What a bizarre concept! > > >> Huh? > >> Then... use it as the author intended. I am _not_ forcing you to use the > >> obj._protected attributes! > > > But what if I want an automatic check to verify that I am using it as > > the author intended? Is that unreasonable? > > You mean that you can't /tell/ whether you typed mumble._seekrit? > You're very strange. It's kind of hard to do by accident. I'd have If I have a team of 200 programmers, I can't easily tell if one of them did that somewhere. Why do people like you have such a hard time understanding that I'm not talking here about smallish programs with one or a few developers? And even with only one programmer, he might access "mumble._seekrit" for a debugging test, then forget to take it out. > thought that you could do that with grep, err... > > git grep '\._' | sed 's/self\._//g' | grep '\._' > > ought to do as a rough start. > > If you can't trust your programmers to make it clear when they're doing > something dubious, I think you have bigger problems. Yes, I think I have bigger problems. But I like the challenge. I don't think I'd be happy working on small problems, but to each his own. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
