On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:50 AM, R. David Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. Except in very limited circumstances (such as a security sandbox) > I would *much* rather have the code I'm interacting with use advisory > means rather than preventing me from being a consenting adult. (Having to > name mangle by hand when someone has used a __ method is painful enough, > thank you...good thing the need to do that doesn't dome up often (mostly > only in unit tests)).
The main argument I'm aware of in favour of this kind of enforcement is that it means you get exceptions at the point of *error* (trying to modify the "read-only" dict), rather than having a strange action-at-a-distance data mutation bug to track down. However, in that case, it's just fine (and in fact better) if there is a way around the default enforcement via a more verbose spelling. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com