5 ms·

> However, Python does not have a real privacy model. > This is unsettling if you’re coming from a Java or C/C++ world and are expecting access modifiers It's

by jack9 8y ago

> However, Python does not have a real privacy model. > This is unsettling if you’re coming from a Java or C/C++ world and are expecting access modifiers It's unsettling to a lot of people, but so what? I still don't see a solid use case for where member access (not "privacy") is a good idea. Python is one of the only languages to get access modifiers right (convention), imo and I don't even like Python. You could implement some "privacy" with a lambda closure (which gets increasingly complex), but that's one more technique that lambdas are ill-suited for.

DonaldPShimoda 8y ago
The author makes a lot of strong statements based on their opinions. I wrote a bit about their dynamic/weak typing gaffe in another top-level comment. > lambda closure Just FYI (not intended to be mean or anything), in formal PL theory this phrasing doesn't make sense. A closure is the pairing of an anonymous function (a "lambda") with an environment. Python's "lambda" is really just a lambda --- it is not a closure. This is revealed in the common pitfall where you try to create a list comprehension using a lambda to generate interior values.
- jack9 8y ago
  The idea is to create a lambda that's sole purpose is to act as a closure for member access restriction. I'm not sure how that could be misinterpreted, but here's your prize.
  - DonaldPShimoda 8y ago
    I guess my point was that you should have just said "closure" instead of "lambda closure", since that phrasing doesn't make any sense in a formal context. Lambdas and closures are different things entirely. I really wasn't trying to be patronizing or anything; I was just trying to offer information in case you found it interesting, but I guess I missed the mark there. My apologies.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bb88 8y ago
Even in C/C++ privacy is silly, since at any point, any part of the program can look up any part of memory it has access to, and that would include privately defined members.

by jack9 8y ago

DonaldPShimoda 8y ago

The author makes a lot of strong statements based on their opinions. I wrote a bit about their dynamic/weak typing gaffe in another top-level comment. > lambda closure Just FYI (not intended to be mean or anything), in formal PL theory this phrasing doesn't make sense. A closure is the pairing of an anonymous function (a "lambda") with an environment. Python's "lambda" is really just a lambda --- it is not a closure. This is revealed in the common pitfall where you try to create a list comprehension using a lambda to generate interior values.

jack9 8y ago
The idea is to create a lambda that's sole purpose is to act as a closure for member access restriction. I'm not sure how that could be misinterpreted, but here's your prize.
- DonaldPShimoda 8y ago
  I guess my point was that you should have just said "closure" instead of "lambda closure", since that phrasing doesn't make any sense in a formal context. Lambdas and closures are different things entirely. I really wasn't trying to be patronizing or anything; I was just trying to offer information in case you found it interesting, but I guess I missed the mark there. My apologies.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bb88 8y ago

Even in C/C++ privacy is silly, since at any point, any part of the program can look up any part of memory it has access to, and that would include privately defined members.