Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 27, 9:13 pm, Mark Wooding wrote: > I'm referring to a number of features: > >   * Redefinition of classes, yes.  Interactive development is very >     frustrating without this.  Thanks for that link, by the way! > >   * CHANGE-CLASS to change the class of instances.  This is more than >    

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Tuesday 27 January 2009 02:56:51 pm Russ P. wrote: > On Jan 27, 11:40 am, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > > I think you still fail to see that what we are objecting is not that the > > original writer can "optionally" use the enforced data hiding (which, as > > someone pointed out before me, can be d

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Russ P." writes: > If Python had a "private" keyword (or equivalent), for example, the > user would only need to delete it wherever necessary to gain the > desired access. And you obviously weren't listening when we said that having to make source code changes to upstream modules was a serious

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Paul Rubin wrote: Scott David Daniels writes: But, the research on the language "Self" shows that even in the face of a language with more dynamism than Smalltalk (or Python), performance can be obtained using compiler technology I'd be interested in seeing any publications about that Sel

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 27, 12:13 pm, "Russ P." wrote: > On Jan 26, 6:09 am, Steve Holden wrote: > > > Quite. Python is a language "for consenting adults". It has perceived > > deficiencies for certain software engineering environments. Can we drop > > the subject now? This horse was flogged to death long ago, an

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

[No, my email address doesn't begin `m...@'. Fixed.] Michele Simionato writes: > On Jan 21, 2:11 am, Mark Wooding wrote: > >> CLOS is much more complex and dynamic than Python's object system; >> but it can be compiled very aggressively. > > I agree that CLOS is complex and that it can be comp

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 27, 11:40 am, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > I think you still fail to see that what we are objecting is not that the > original writer can "optionally" use the enforced data hiding (which, as > someone pointed out before me, can be done with tools like pylint). The > objection is about the _us

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Tuesday 27 January 2009 02:13:50 pm Russ P. wrote: > I suggested that maybe -- maybe! -- the versatility of Python could be > enhanced with enforced data hiding. I was careful to say several times > that I don't know if that can even be done in Python (with all its > introspection and so forth).

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 26, 6:09 am, Steve Holden wrote: > Quite. Python is a language "for consenting adults". It has perceived > deficiencies for certain software engineering environments. Can we drop > the subject now? This horse was flogged to death long ago, and it's > pointless and cruel to keep on beating

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 21, 2:11 am, Mark Wooding wrote: > CLOS is much more complex and dynamic than Python's object system; > but it > can be compiled very aggressively. I agree that CLOS is complex and that it can be compiled very aggressively, but I do not think that it is more dynamic than Python. What fea

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Luis Zarrabeitia" wrote: 8< >Hehe. At the beginning of this thread, I also thought that Russ P. and Paul >Robin were the same person. I have serious problems with names. *nods in agreement, because the man's surname is Rubin, not Robin* :-) - Hendrik -- http://mail.

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Tuesday 27 January 2009 04:39:02 am Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Still not. But it's interesting to note that you consider everyone > disagreeing with you as basically the same person. Hehe. At the beginning of this thread, I also thought that Russ P. and Paul Robin were the same person. I hav

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Russ P. a écrit : On Jan 26, 1:07 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: No. I can change the *team's* code. Please *read*. "team's ownership", ok ? Or do I have to spell it out loud ? TEAM'S OWNERSHIP. Uh. You get the message, now ? Team ownership doesn't necessarily mean that you can just change c

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 26, 1:07 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > No. I can change the *team's* code. Please *read*. "team's ownership", > ok ? Or do I have to spell it out loud ? TEAM'S OWNERSHIP. Uh. You get > the message, now ? Team ownership doesn't necessarily mean that you can just change code at will. In

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Russ P. a écrit : (snip) You are trying to dictate that the library implementer not be allowed to use enforced access restriction. And, in the larger sense, you are trying to dictate that access restrictions not be enforced in Python. FWIW, it's actually *you* who are trying to dictate that acc

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Paul Rubin wrote: > Steve Holden writes: >> Quite. Python is a language "for consenting adults". > > Shouldn't such a language allow consenting adults to enter a BDSM > scene without being moralized at, if that's what they want to do? ;-) Yes, but you know what moralizers are like ... regards

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

2009/1/26 Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid>: > Steve Holden writes: >> Quite. Python is a language "for consenting adults". > > Shouldn't such a language allow consenting adults to enter a BDSM > scene without being moralized at, if that's what they want to do? ;-) The language doesn't

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steve Holden writes: > Quite. Python is a language "for consenting adults". Shouldn't such a language allow consenting adults to enter a BDSM scene without being moralized at, if that's what they want to do? ;-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Russ P. a écrit : >> On Jan 23, 6:36 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: >> Makes *no* sense? There's *no* good reason *at all* for the original author to hide or protect internals? >>> My bad, sorry. >>> It makes sense... if the original author is an egotist who bel

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Russ P. a écrit : On Jan 23, 6:36 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: Makes *no* sense? There's *no* good reason *at all* for the original author to hide or protect internals? My bad, sorry. It makes sense... if the original author is an egotist who believes he must control how I use that library.

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Russ P. a écrit : On Jan 23, 4:57 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Russ P. a écrit : As I said before, if you have the source code you can always change private attributes to public in a pinch if the language enforces encapsulation. And then have to maintain a fork. No, thanks. For crying o

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Paul Rubin" wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > > We're not talking specifically about Python standard library changes, > > we're talking about any project which may have more entertaining *cough* > > policies regarding API changes. > > Oh, yes, I see what you me

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 25, 7:56 pm, Mark Wooding wrote: > "Russ P." writes: > > [snip stuff I don't disagree with] > > > That makes renaming and refactoring riskier in general in Python than > > in statically typed languages with enforced access restrictions. More > > care and attention to detail is needed to do

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Russ P." writes: [snip stuff I don't disagree with] > That makes renaming and refactoring riskier in general in Python than > in statically typed languages with enforced access restrictions. More > care and attention to detail is needed to do it right in Python. In fact, I don't disagree with

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 25, 5:31 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > It seems to me that Russ' latest objection to _private names is not > specific to _private names. The same problem: > > "You will get no warning at all. You will just be inadvertently > creating a new "private" attribute -- and the assignment that you

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Russ P." writes: > On Jan 25, 10:04 am, Mark Wooding wrote: > > But what if you type "mumble._seekrit" in several places, then the > library implementer decides to give in to your nagging and makes it > "public" by changing it to "mumble.seekrit". There's a possibly better fix: introduce a pro

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > We're not talking specifically about Python standard library changes, > we're talking about any project which may have more entertaining *cough* > policies regarding API changes. Oh, yes, I see what you mean. That's a problem even in small projects, sometimes even in

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:15:47 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: >> How is this scenario different from an API change where >> self.some_attribute gets changed to self.attribute? > > That would be a backward incompatible change to a published interface, > something that should not

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > How is this scenario different from an API change where > self.some_attribute gets changed to self.attribute? That would be a backward incompatible change to a published interface, something that should not be done without a good reason, and which was mostly avoided th

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:59:48 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > How is this scenario different from an API change where public_method() > gets changed to method()? Sorry, that's a poor example, since you were talking about attributes rather than methods. Must stop posting before coffee *wink* Rew

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:01:16 -0800, Russ P. wrote: > On Jan 25, 10:04 am, Mark Wooding wrote: > >> > 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? >> Yo

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 25, 10:04 am, Mark Wooding wrote: > > 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. But

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:36:59 -0500, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: >> It makes sense... if the original author is an egotist who believes he >> must control how I use that library. > > Then I guess Guido must be such an egotist, because there's plenty of > internals in Python

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 25, 10:04 am, Mark Wooding wrote: > "Russ P." 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, mergi

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Russ P." writes: > Imagine a person who repairs computers. He is really annoyed that he > constantly has to remove the cover to get at the guts of the computer. > So he insists that computers cases should be made without covers. Poor analogy. He gets fed up that the computers he's meant to be

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Russ P." 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 upgr

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Quoting "Russ P." : > On Jan 24, 9:54 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > > Quoting "Russ P." : > > > > It is. For starters, I'd lose the information of "this attribute was > intended to > > be internal and I'm accessing it anyway". > > Not really. When you get a new version of the library and try to

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 24, 9:54 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > Quoting "Russ P." : > > > Once again, if you have the source code for the library (and the right > > to modify it), how does the "power" lie with the library implementer > > rather than you the user? > > > You say you don't want to "fork" the library.

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Quoting "Russ P." : > Once again, if you have the source code for the library (and the right > to modify it), how does the "power" lie with the library implementer > rather than you the user? > > You say you don't want to "fork" the library. Let's stipulate for the > sake of argument that a one-

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:31:14 -, Tim Rowe wrote: 2009/1/24 Rhodri James : My experience with medium-sized organisations (50-100 people) is that either you talk to Fred directly, or it doesn't happen. In particular the more people (especially PHBs) that get involved, the slower the change

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 24, 5:09 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > I didn't say "at all". Those were your words, not mine. > I said that it makes no sense that the power lies on _you_ instead of on _my > team_. And, when I said that, I recall we were talking about the python > language, not C. Once again, if you hav

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 24, 4:17 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > Quoting "Russ P." : > > > On Jan 23, 6:36 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > > > > > Makes *no* sense? There's *no* good reason *at all* for the original > > > > author to hide or protect internals? > > > > My bad, sorry. > > > It makes sense... if the ori

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Quoting Steven D'Aprano : > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:36:59 -0500, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > > > Quoting Steven D'Aprano : > >> Makes *no* sense? There's *no* good reason *at all* for the original > >> author to hide or protect internals? > > > > My bad, sorry. > > It makes sense... if the origina

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

2009/1/24 Rhodri James : > My experience with medium-sized organisations (50-100 people) is that > either you talk to Fred directly, or it doesn't happen. In particular > the more people (especially PHBs) that get involved, the slower the > change will come and the less like your original requir

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Quoting "Russ P." : > On Jan 23, 6:36 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > > > > Makes *no* sense? There's *no* good reason *at all* for the original > > > author to hide or protect internals? > > > > My bad, sorry. > > It makes sense... if the original author is an egotist who believes he > must > >

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:36:59 -0500, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > Quoting Steven D'Aprano : > >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:07:55 -0500, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: >> >> > It should be in _our_ power as the team of all participant coders on >> > _our_ project to decide if we should mess with the internals

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 23, 6:36 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > > Makes *no* sense? There's *no* good reason *at all* for the original > > author to hide or protect internals? > > My bad, sorry. > It makes sense... if the original author is an egotist who believes he must > control how I use that library. If the

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:41:35 +, Mark Wooding wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: ... >> As I see it, you have two coherent positions. On the one hand, you >> could be like Mark Wooding, and say that Yes you want to risk buffer >> overflows by messing with the internals > > Please, point out whe

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 03:18:05 -, Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote: It is, to some extent, also part of the PHB's job to "filter the traffic" and protect both Fred and you from making too many interruptions for each other. This is especially important if you're the type of

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Rhodri James" writes: > My experience with medium-sized organisations (50-100 people) is that > either you talk to Fred directly, or it doesn't happen. In particular > the more people (especially PHBs) that get involved, the slower the > change will come and the less like your original requireme

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Quoting Steven D'Aprano : > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:07:55 -0500, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > > > It should be in _our_ power as the team of all participant coders on > > _our_ project to decide if we should mess with the internals or not. > > > > What makes no sense is that it should be in the ori

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:28:22 -, Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote: Mark Wooding writes: Now we come on to Fred. If Fred's across the room from me then we're back to the water-cooler. If he's on a different continent, and I know he'll be affected, I'll probably email him

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > Let's be specific here. The list implementation in CPython is an array > with a hidden field storing the current length. If this hidden field was > exposed to Python code, you could set it to a value much larger than the > actual size of the array and cause buffer ove

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Mark Wooding wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > >> I did? Where did I make that assumption? > > I inferred it from the juxtaposition, apparently in error. Sorry. > >> What I said was that the model "The code is the whole team's ownership" >> doesn't work well for large projects. *One* reason

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 23, 7:01 pm, Mark Wooding wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > > I did? Where did I make that assumption? > > I inferred it from the juxtaposition, apparently in error.  Sorry. > > > What I said was that the model "The code is the whole team's ownership" > > doesn't work well for large proje

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > I did? Where did I make that assumption? I inferred it from the juxtaposition, apparently in error. Sorry. > What I said was that the model "The code is the whole team's ownership" > doesn't work well for large projects. *One* reason it doesn't work for > large proj

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:07:55 -0500, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > It should be in _our_ power as the team of all participant coders on > _our_ project to decide if we should mess with the internals or not. > > What makes no sense is that it should be in the original author's power > to decide, if he

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:09:48 +, Mark Wooding wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:57:52 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >>> Why on earth couldn't I change the code of another member of my team >>> if that code needs changes ? The code is the whole team's ownership.

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Mark Wooding writes: > Now we come on to Fred. If Fred's across the room from me then we're > back to the water-cooler. If he's on a different continent, and I know > he'll be affected, I'll probably email him. If I've never heard of him > at all, well, he might just lose when someone puts my c

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:57:52 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> Why on earth couldn't I change the code of another member of my team if >> that code needs changes ? The code is the whole team's ownership. > > That's a model that works well when you have a small team of

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steve Holden writes: > Annotations *have* made it into 3.0, so it's possible that the might > become usable. Remember, they'll always be optional, so those who don't > want to use them won't lose anything at all. There's a problem here. An interface has two sides. Access control annotations, a

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Russ P." writes: > Was this library module released in source form? > > If so, then why would you care that it has enforced access > restrictions? You can just take them out, then do whatever you would > have done had they not been there to start with. I don't see how that > is any more work tha

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > You've built something full of user serviceable parts. You've > insisted, publicly and loudly, that the ability to modify those parts > is absolutely essential, you've rejected every effort to lock down > those internals, and then when somebody does exactly what you > en

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

"Russ P." writes: > OK, fine, you can change the code of another member of the team. Are > you going to check with him first, or just do it? The point is that > changing an interface requires agreement of the team members who use > that interface, whether on the calling or the implementation side

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Friday 23 January 2009 06:31:50 am Antoon Pardon wrote: > On 2009-01-16, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > > Quoting "Russ P." : > >> If you "*shouldn't* mess with the implementation", then what is wrong > >> with enforcing that "shouldn't" in the language itself? > > > > Because, as a library user, it

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 23, 6:21 am, Steve Holden wrote: > I have to say that I thought the example was somewhat bogus. Any > development team that is even slightly concerned about the possibility > of logic bombs in the code will try to mitigate that possibility by the > use of code inspections. Of course they

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

2009/1/22 Scott David Daniels : > Having once been a more type-A, I labored for a couple of years trying > to build a restricted language that provably terminated for work on an > object-oriented database research. I was careful to say that it was the /use/ of the language that is restricted; it'

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Hello thats excellant !! On 1/23/09, Russ P. wrote: > > On Jan 23, 4:57 am, Bruno Desthuilliers 42.desthuilli...@websiteburo.invalid> wrote: > > Russ P. a écrit : > > > > As I said before, if you have the source code you can always change > > > private attributes to public in a pinch if the lan

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Russ P. a écrit : [...] >> Mr. D'Aprano gave an excellent example of a large banking program. >> Without enforced encapsulation, anyone on the development team has >> access to the entire program and could potentially sneak in fraudulent >> code much more easily than if

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:42:38 -0800, Russ P. wrote: >> My my my. If you don't trust your programmers, then indeed, don't use >> Python. What can I say (and what do I care ?). But once again, relying >> on the language's access restriction to manage *security* is, well, >> kind of funny, you know ?

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 23, 4:57 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Russ P. a écrit : > > As I said before, if you have the source code you can always change > > private attributes to public in a pinch if the language enforces > > encapsulation. > > And then have to maintain a fork. No, thanks. For crying out loud

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:57:52 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> As I said before, if you have the source code you can always change >> private attributes to public in a pinch if the language enforces >> encapsulation. > > And then have to maintain a fork. No, thanks. If you're messing with the

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 23, 4:30 am, Mark Wooding wrote: > Suppose that you write a Python library module and release it.  I find > that it's /almost/ the right thing for some program of mine, but it > doesn't quite work properly unless I hack about like so... perfect!  I'm > a happy bunny; you've gained a user (

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Russ P. a écrit : (snip) I am curious about something. Have you ever needed to access a "private" attribute (i.e., one named with a leading underscore) in Python code that you did not have the source code for? For that matter, have you ever even used a library written in Python without having acc

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:10:05 +, Mark Wooding wrote: >> Well, your claim /was/ just wrong. But if you want to play dumb: the >> interface is what's documented as being the interface. > > But you miss my point. Evidently. > We're told Python doesn't have private att

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:54:53 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> In context, I had just mentioned that lists' internals were >> inaccessible from Python code. I neglected to give an example at the >> time, but a good example is the current length of the list. Consider >> the experience of Microso

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On 2009-01-16, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote: > > Quoting "Russ P." : > >> On Jan 15, 12:21 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers >> wrote: >> >> > Once again, the important point is that there's a *clear* distinction >> > between interface and implementation, and that you *shouldn't* mess with >> > implementation.

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 22, 9:22 pm, "Russ P." wrote: > code. You can play around with the internals all you want in your own > little world, but as when you are working with a team, you need to > adhere to the interfaces they define (if any). The word "as" should not be there: ... but when you are working with

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 23, 1:54 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > > > > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:10:05 +, Mark Wooding wrote: > > >> Steven D'Aprano writes: > > >>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:12:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > > But if you ha

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Russ P. a écrit : On Jan 21, 4:04 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Russ P. a écrit : (snip) Your mistake for being a moron. But it seems to happen regularly, doesn't it. How much more of my time are you going to waste, loser? Calling people names is certainly not the best way to defend your op

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano a écrit : On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:10:05 +, Mark Wooding wrote: Steven D'Aprano writes: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:12:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Steven D'Aprano a écrit : But if you have free access to attributes, then *everything* is interface. Nope. How could an

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Russ P. wrote: (...) > My understanding is that the vast majority of Python software is > provided as open source. Hence, I am a bit confused by all the talk > about the need for freedom and openness in Python. If data hiding were > enforced, and you need access t

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 21, 4:04 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Russ P. a écrit : > (snip) > > > Your mistake for being a moron. But it seems to happen regularly, > > doesn't it. How much more of my time are you going to waste, loser? > > Calling people names is certainly not the best way to defend your > opinio

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 22, 7:48 pm, Terry Reedy wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > > Here's a thought experiment for you. You've suggested that the values > > returned by cmp() are allowed to change "at whim". Okay, let's do it: > > make a patch that changes cmp() to return -17, 0 or 53, and promise to > > suppo

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Jan 22, 6:30 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:10:05 +, Mark Wooding wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano writes: > > >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:12:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > >>> Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > But if you have free access to attributes, then *everything

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano wrote: Here's a thought experiment for you. You've suggested that the values returned by cmp() are allowed to change "at whim". Okay, let's do it: make a patch that changes cmp() to return -17, 0 or 53, and promise to support it for at least three years. Try to get it accepted

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:10:05 +, Mark Wooding wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:12:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >>> Steven D'Aprano a écrit : But if you have free access to attributes, then *everything* is interface. >>> >>> Nope. >> >> How could a

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Scott David Daniels writes: > Having once been a more type-A, I labored for a couple of years trying > to build a restricted language that provably terminated for work on an > object-oriented database research. I finally gave it up as a bad idea, > because, in practice, we don't care if a loop wi

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Paul Rubin wrote: > Mark Wooding writes: > >> Some people (let's call them `type A programmers') have decided that >> they want to be assisted with writing correct programs... >> Other people (`type B programmers') don't like having their (apparently? >> possibly?) correct programs rejected

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Thursday 22 January 2009 08:32:51 am Steven D'Aprano wrote: > And now I have accidentally broken the spam() method, due to a name clash. True, that's bad. I wish that were 'fixed'. > Besides, double-underscore names are a PITA to work with: Isn't that example the point of having self.__privat

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Bruno Desthuilliers writes: > Paul Rubin a écrit : >> I'd say that Python's FP characteristics are an important part of its >> expressiveness. > > Indeed - but they do not make Python a functional language[1]. Python is > based on objects, not on functions, I'd have a good go at defining a func

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Tim Rowe wrote: Btw, the correctness of a program (on a turing-complete language) cannot be statically proven. Ask Turing about it. For the most safety critical of programmes, for which static proof is required, restrictions are placed on the use of the language that effectively mean that it is

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:12:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> Steven D'Aprano a écrit : >>> But if you have free access to attributes, then *everything* is >>> interface. >> >> Nope. > > How could anyone fail to be convinced by an argument that detailed and > carefu

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:12:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Steven D'Aprano a écrit : >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:33:26 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> >>> Steven D'Aprano a écrit : On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:54:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Russ P. a écrit : > (sni

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Paul Rubin writes: > Also, the application area matters. There is a difference between > programming for one's own enjoyment or to do a personal task, and > writing programs whose reliability or lack of it can affect other > people's lives. I've never done any safe

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano a écrit : On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:33:26 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Steven D'Aprano a écrit : On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:54:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Russ P. a écrit : (snip) In any case, I have suggested that Python should perhaps get a new keyword, "private" or

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:33:26 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Steven D'Aprano a écrit : >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:54:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> >>> Russ P. a écrit : >>> (snip) In any case, I have suggested that Python should perhaps get a new keyword, "private" or "priv

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

> Btw, the correctness of a program (on a turing-complete language) cannot be > statically proven. Ask Turing about it. For the most safety critical of programmes, for which static proof is required, restrictions are placed on the use of the language that effectively mean that it is not Turing-com

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Paul Rubin a écrit : Bruno Desthuilliers writes: In my limited experience with Haskell (statically typed but very high level), "dynamic" and "static" were not meant to concern typing here (or at least not only typing). I'm not sure what you mean by those terms then. Python (and some other

Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Steven D'Aprano a écrit : On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:54:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Russ P. a écrit : (snip) In any case, I have suggested that Python should perhaps get a new keyword, "private" or "priv". And quite a few people - most of them using Python daily - answered they didn't wa

  1   2   3   4   5   >