Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > Of course, these restrictions can be easily worked around by a > > sufficiently determined attacker... but if you have to think of the > > user of your code as an attacker, you've got worse problems than > > this trifling one. > > I've probably stumbled across something that people often want to do > for ill-considered reasons; I don't really understand the reaction I'm > getting. > > Why is "I want to make objects immutable" seen as "I don't trust my > users"? Are Python's existing immutable types also seen the same way? > If not, why the distinction?
A type implemented in C offers different possibilities than one implemented in Python -- no deep conceptual reason, just practical ones. A substantial fraction of the time, people asking "how do I stop the users of my code from doing X" proceed by screaming "but they could still do X if they hopped on their left foot in a moonless midnight while sprinkling bat's blood!" as a response to any suggestion. So, when you ask "how do I stop the users of my code from doing X" without qualification, you're quite likely to get such disclaimers. If you don't want them, learn to ask about stopping your users from ACCIDENTALLY doing X, and no reasonable respondant will fail to notice the qualification. > For context, I'm intending for the immutability of class instances to > be a properly documented part of the class protocol. Does that sound > more reasonable? There was nothing unreasonable in your original request, either; and I don't think that making it explicit that you intended to document the restriction would have changed my answer (although an explicit acknowlegment that you're looking for restrictions against accidental misuse rather than against determined attackers surely would). Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
