Quoting "Russ P." <russ.paie...@gmail.com>: > On Jan 23, 6:36 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia <ky...@uh.cu> 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 original author provides you with the source code and the right > to modify it, he cannot possibly control how you use the library. You > can trivially disable any access controls. But for some reason that's > not enough for you.
No, I'm not satisfied with forking python just to use sys._getframe. > Has it occurred to you that some users might actually *want* access > controls? Maybe some users want to actually use the library as the > author intended it to be used. What a bizarre concept! Huh? Then... use it as the author intended. I am _not_ forcing you to use the obj._protected attributes! Even I run pylint against third party libraries just to assess if the risk of them messing with someone else's internals is worth taking (as in the case of inspect.currentframe, which is exactly the same as sys._getframe) or not (random library downloaded from the net). > Oh, but only a paranoid fool could possibly want access controls, eh? > Who's the egotist here? See? You too changed what I said. Somehow you managed to delete the _other_ situation I gave. Not worth correcting it. -- Luis Zarrabeitia Facultad de Matemática y Computación, UH http://profesores.matcom.uh.cu/~kyrie -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
