> Unsafe has also been proposed. I do not like this either because it is
> not accurate. Simply because something dangerous, foolish or stupid can
> be done using this method type does not mean it will be. Are we to label
> all objects "unsafe" simply because of the capacity of harm? Safety is
> in the hands of the programer.

I agree with this vehemently :) Would you want to use "unsafe C++" 
or "unsafe Java"? I think "restricted" and "unrestricted" are 
clear and concise. This is not about "safety" per se, but about 

Brian Lloyd        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Engineer  540.371.6909              
Digital Creations  http://www.digicool.com 

Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to