473,836 Members | 1,580 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

status of Programming by Contract (PEP 316)?

I just stumbled onto PEP 316: Programming by Contract for Python
(http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0316/). This would be a great
addition to Python, but I see that it was submitted way back in 2003,
and its status is "deferred." I did a quick search on
comp.lang.pytho n,
but I don't seem to see much on it. Does anyone know what the real
status is of getting this into standard Python? Thanks.

Aug 29 '07
81 2828
Alex Martelli wrote:
Ricardo ArŠoz <ri******@gmail .comwrote:
...
>>>We should remember that the level
of security of a 'System' is the same as the level of security of it's
weakest component,
...
>You win the argument, and thanks you prove my point. You typically
concerned yourself with the technical part of the matter, yet you
completely ignored the point I was trying to make.

That's because I don't particularly care about "the point you were
trying to make" (either for or against -- as I said, it's a case of ROI
for different investments [in either security, or, more germanely to
this thread, reliability] rather than of useful/useless classification
of the investments), while I care deeply about proper system thinking
(which you keep failing badly on, even in this post).
And here you start, followed by 'F- at system thinking', 'glib and false
assertions', 'falsities', etc.
I don't think you meant anything personal, how could you, we don't know
each other. But the outcome feels like a personal attack instead of an
attack on the ideas exposed.
If that's not what you intended, you should check your communication
abilities and see what is wrong. If that is what you meant well...

So I will not answer your post. I'll let it rest for a while till I
don't feel the sting, then I'll re-read it and try to learn as much as I
can from your thoughts (thank you for them). And even though some of
your thinking process I find objectionable I will not comment on it as
I'm sure it will start some new flame exchange which will have a lot to
do with ego and nothing to do with python.

Sep 2 '07 #81
In article <11************ *********@r34g2 000hsd.googlegr oups.com>,
Russ <uy*******@snea kemail.comwrote :
>
Excellent points. As for "no strong case for adding new features to
Python specifically for design-by-contract," if you mean adding
something to language itself, I agree, but I see nothing wrong with
adding it to the standard libraries, if that is possible without
changing the language itself. Someone please correct me if I am wrong,
but I think PEP adds only to the libraries.
You're wrong, but even aside from that, libraries need to prove
themselves useful before they get added.
--
Aahz (aa**@pythoncra ft.com) <* http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"Many customs in this life persist because they ease friction and promote
productivity as a result of universal agreement, and whether they are
precisely the optimal choices is much less important." --Henry Spencer
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/ten-commandments.html
Sep 2 '07 #82

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.