Peter Wang wrote:
>  
>  On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:33:08 +1100, "Darren Collins"
>  <collinda@[...].com> wrote:

>  >If people can see that something is supposed to be private, but they
>  >absolutely need access to it, then they have just discovered an interface
>  >problem. They can either fix the interface or put a quick hack in their code
>  >to to work around it by accessing the 'private' member. But they put in the
>  >hack knowing that they are breaking the original designer's intentions, so
>  >they're on their own. It is nice that you can do this when you really need
>  >to, though.
>  
>  my question, all along, was not whether python works well when used
>  with good development practice.  my question was to discover if there
>  were any "safety nets" that other development teams might have erected
>  for lapses in process.  if there are none, maybe we can think of some.
>  if there are none because none are possible, then that's a different
>  issue.
>  
>  i've been getting a lot of "there aren't any because you need good
>  development practices" answers, which seems equivalent to "this car
>  doesn't have airbags because you should wear your seatbelts".  in the
>  long term this is good because it forces people to wear seatbelts,
>  but it doesn't answer the question about how we save the ones that
>  don't.

I wrote PyChecker (http://pychecker.sf.net) to help alleviate 
some of these problems/concerns.  It can check for potential bugs,
as well as, more stylistic issues (too many lines in a function or
return statements).  In the future, I intend to add a check for accessing
an attribute outside an object.  Many checks of this sort can be added.

Unit testing is a must, but pychecker can help in code that doesn't
get exercised in the tests.

Neal
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list