On Dec 12, 9:09 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Emanuele D'Arrigo a écrit :
>
> > On Dec 11, 7:48 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
> > wrote:
> >>> or to provide read-only
> >>> access. I.e. right now I'm working on the graphical client which
> >>> potentially could be rewritten entirely by the users. It
Emanuele D'Arrigo a écrit :
On Dec 11, 7:48 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
wrote:
or to provide read-only
access. I.e. right now I'm working on the graphical client which
potentially could be rewritten entirely by the users. It is necessary
and perfectly reasonable for the client module to access some
On Dec 11, 11:46 pm, greg wrote:
> Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
> > -IF- the application was single-user yes, it wouldn't be a big deal.
> > But as it is potentially multi-user, I don't want one party to corrupt
> > the application for everybody else.
>
> In that case you definitely want a client-serv
Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
-IF- the application was single-user yes, it wouldn't be a big deal.
But as it is potentially multi-user, I don't want one party to corrupt
the application for everybody else.
In that case you definitely want a client-server architecture,
with the server managing all t
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 at 13:41, Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:48?pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
wrote:
or to provide read-only
access. I.e. right now I'm working on the graphical client which
potentially could be rewritten entirely by the users. It is necessary
and perfectly reasonable for the c
On Dec 11, 7:48 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
wrote:
> > or to provide read-only
> > access. I.e. right now I'm working on the graphical client which
> > potentially could be rewritten entirely by the users. It is necessary
> > and perfectly reasonable for the client module to access some of the
> > obj
Emanuele D'Arrigo a écrit :
Thank you all for the confirmation and the suggestions (including the
tangential ones: I didn't know one could remove your his own posts!).
As much as I really like Python (which I've been using full-time only
for the past two months) I really wish it did have regular
Emanuele D'Arrigo a écrit :
Sorry if I'm a bit thick here...
can any of the esteemed participant in this noble newsgroup
Ain't that a bit over the border ?-)
confirm
that is not possible to prevent a python module's code from executing
the methods of another module?
I.e. if I have a class w
Thank you all for the confirmation and the suggestions (including the
tangential ones: I didn't know one could remove your his own posts!).
As much as I really like Python (which I've been using full-time only
for the past two months) I really wish it did have regular private/
protected/public met
> And of course -now- I realise that the OP was asking for protecting
> methods. Please disregard my last post :)
Alex23,
Are you telling me that you do not know how to YANK your own post? I
find that hard to believe. ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 12, 3:22 am, alex23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > There is, however, also the possibility of prefixing the method name
> > with '__'. The invokes 'name mangling', which makes it more difficult
> > (though not impossible, the idea is to avoid
On Dec 12, 2:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There is, however, also the possibility of prefixing the method name
> with '__'. The invokes 'name mangling', which makes it more difficult
> (though not impossible, the idea is to avoid accidents) for the method
> to be called from outside the class
alex23 wrote:
On Dec 12, 2:07 am, "Emanuele D'Arrigo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I.e. if I have a class with two methods, doSomethingSafe() and
doSomethingDangerous(), is there a way to prevent another module from
executing doSomethingDangerous() but allow the execution of
doSomethingSafe()?
My
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 at 08:16, alex23 wrote:
On Dec 12, 2:07?am, "Emanuele D'Arrigo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I.e. if I have a class with two methods, doSomethingSafe() and
doSomethingDangerous(), is there a way to prevent another module from
executing doSomethingDangerous() but allow the execu
On Dec 12, 2:07 am, "Emanuele D'Arrigo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I.e. if I have a class with two methods, doSomethingSafe() and
> doSomethingDangerous(), is there a way to prevent another module from
> executing doSomethingDangerous() but allow the execution of
> doSomethingSafe()?
>
> My under
15 matches
Mail list logo
