Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, I think that the semantic changes required to make private > do what you want are deep enough that the resulting language > wouldn't be Python any longer. It has deep implications from the > interpeter implementation all the way out to the design of the > standard library, all of which would have to be reworked to make > private do "the right thing."
Nah, I think Python could withstand those changes and still be Python. > Which brings me to my point. Rather than trying to bandage Python to > do what you want - and what, based on this thread, a lot of other > people *don't* want - you should be building a system from the ground > up to support the kind of B&D environment you want. Heh, that goes against the principle that Python is supposed to be good for everything. For example, there was a partly-written web browser called Grail written in Python, that used Python instead of Javascript for web scripting. I believe it depended on rexec/Bastion to stop scripts from taking over the browser. Wanting to write a browser that way is perfectly reasonable. But lack of a secure rexec makes that approach impossible. Maybe it's not feasible to implement rexec in Python 2.x. But I don't see anything B&D-ish about hoping that as Python evolves, it becomes possible to bring back rexec. > Of course, you do realize that in practice you can *never* get what > you want. It assumes that the infrastructure is all bug-free, which > may not be the case. Yes, of course, you need to be careful at every level. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
