On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:37:57 -0000, Russ P. <russ.paie...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:48 pm, "Rhodri James" <rho...@wildebst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:16:01 -0000, Russ P. <russ.paie...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Here we go again. If you have access to the source code (as you nearly
> always do with Python code), then "breaking the language-enforced data
> hiding" is a trivial matter of deleting the word "private" (or
> equivalent).
If it's that trivial to defeat something that its proponents appear to
want to be close to an iron-clad guarantee, what on earth is the point
of using "private" in the first place?
If a library developer releases the source code of a library, any user
can trivially "defeat" the access restrictions. But if a team of
developers is checking in code for a project, the leader(s) of the
project can insist that the access restrictions be respected to
simplify the management of interfaces. The larger the team, the more
useful that can be. That's why Java, C++, Ada, Scala, and other
languages have a "private" keyword.
Indeed he can. He can even do that in Python; it just requires a little
self-discipline from the team, or a validation script on the code
repository if he really doesn't trust them. Not only can this be done
without forcing the rest of the world to play, it makes things a little
less daunting when those nice clean interfaces turn out to be
incomplete/too slow/not what you thought.
--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste Herder to the Masses
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
