Emanuele D'Arrigo a écrit :
On Dec 11, 7:48 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
or to provide read-only
access. I.e. right now I'm working on the graphical client which
potentially could be rewritten entirely by the users. It is necessary
and perfectly
On Dec 12, 9:09 am, Bruno Desthuilliers bruno.
42.desthuilli...@websiteburo.invalid wrote:
Emanuele D'Arrigo a écrit :
On Dec 11, 7:48 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
or to provide read-only
access. I.e. right now I'm working on the graphical client
Sorry if I'm a bit thick here...
can any of the esteemed participant in this noble newsgroup confirm
that is not possible to prevent a python module's code from executing
the methods of another module?
I.e. if I have a class with two methods, doSomethingSafe() and
doSomethingDangerous(), is
On Dec 12, 2:07 am, Emanuele D'Arrigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I.e. if I have a class with two methods, doSomethingSafe() and
doSomethingDangerous(), is there a way to prevent another module from
executing doSomethingDangerous() but allow the execution of
doSomethingSafe()?
My understanding
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 at 08:16, alex23 wrote:
On Dec 12, 2:07?am, Emanuele D'Arrigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I.e. if I have a class with two methods, doSomethingSafe() and
doSomethingDangerous(), is there a way to prevent another module from
executing doSomethingDangerous() but allow the
alex23 wrote:
On Dec 12, 2:07 am, Emanuele D'Arrigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I.e. if I have a class with two methods, doSomethingSafe() and
doSomethingDangerous(), is there a way to prevent another module from
executing doSomethingDangerous() but allow the execution of
doSomethingSafe()?
My
On Dec 12, 2:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is, however, also the possibility of prefixing the method name
with '__'. The invokes 'name mangling', which makes it more difficult
(though not impossible, the idea is to avoid accidents) for the method
to be called from outside the class.
On Dec 12, 3:22 am, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is, however, also the possibility of prefixing the method name
with '__'. The invokes 'name mangling', which makes it more difficult
(though not impossible, the idea is to avoid
And of course -now- I realise that the OP was asking for protecting
methods. Please disregard my last post :)
Alex23,
Are you telling me that you do not know how to YANK your own post? I
find that hard to believe. ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Thank you all for the confirmation and the suggestions (including the
tangential ones: I didn't know one could remove your his own posts!).
As much as I really like Python (which I've been using full-time only
for the past two months) I really wish it did have regular private/
protected/public
Emanuele D'Arrigo a écrit :
Sorry if I'm a bit thick here...
can any of the esteemed participant in this noble newsgroup
Ain't that a bit over the border ?-)
confirm
that is not possible to prevent a python module's code from executing
the methods of another module?
I.e. if I have a class
Emanuele D'Arrigo a écrit :
Thank you all for the confirmation and the suggestions (including the
tangential ones: I didn't know one could remove your his own posts!).
As much as I really like Python (which I've been using full-time only
for the past two months) I really wish it did have
On Dec 11, 7:48 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
or to provide read-only
access. I.e. right now I'm working on the graphical client which
potentially could be rewritten entirely by the users. It is necessary
and perfectly reasonable for the client
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 at 13:41, Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:48?pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
or to provide read-only
access. I.e. right now I'm working on the graphical client which
potentially could be rewritten entirely by the users. It is
Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
-IF- the application was single-user yes, it wouldn't be a big deal.
But as it is potentially multi-user, I don't want one party to corrupt
the application for everybody else.
In that case you definitely want a client-server architecture,
with the server managing all
On Dec 11, 11:46 pm, greg g...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
-IF- the application was single-user yes, it wouldn't be a big deal.
But as it is potentially multi-user, I don't want one party to corrupt
the application for everybody else.
In that case you definitely
16 matches
Mail list logo
