On Jan 13, 4:03 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr> writes: > > And that's the problem : what Paul suggests are not "improvements" but > > radical design changes. > > Eh? I think of them as moderate and incremental improvements, in a > direction that Python is already moving in.
I've seen no evidence that any Python project is moving even remotely toward data encapsulation. That would be a drastic change. Even if it were only a minor change in the implementation (and it would not be), it would be a major stroke in the Python community. It would basically cause a wholescale power shift from the user to the implementor. As a user it'd be like the difference between living in a free democracy and a fascist dictatorship. > Radical would be > something like a full-scale static type system. > > > I really wonder why peoples that seems to dislike one of the central > > features of Python - it's dynamism - still use it (assuming of > > course they are free to choose another language). > > I certainly don't think dynamism is central to Python. In what I see > as well-developed Python programming style, it's something that is > only rarely used in any important way. You're in the minority, then. > I'd spend much less time > debugging if I got compiler warnings whenever I used dynamism without > a suitable annotation. The 1% of the time where I really want to use > dynamism I don't see any problem with putting in an appropriate > decorator, superclass, or whatever. Well, I guess you are the sacrifical lamb so that everyone else can take advantage of the dynamicism. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
