Will python never intend to support private, protected and public?

[Paul Rubin]

Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> writes:
> I assumed the Java model was based on the C++ model because it seems
> that everything in Java is based on C++, and they share the same
> vocabulary. If I'm wrong - well, that means you considered another
> language already.

I guess it's similar that way, however, C++ doesn't attempt any
enforcement at all, it has naked pointers, etc.

> Sure, Java might be a big improvement. But Python isn't Java. Rather
> than just throwing in something that works, do the legwork to verify
> that you're going to propose a best-of-breed solution. 

I don't think I've proposed anything so far.  I've just been trying to
answer some of the CPython cultists who claim that the concept is
useless.  I'd rather not think too carefully about Python changes of
this depth until after PyPy is fully deployed.  A lot of things that
some folks seem to think are deeply ingrained in Python, are really
just hacks that fell out of the C implementation.  Python has evolved
over time and it will continue to do so.

> If something perfect is available, wouldn't you feel awful if Python
> got saddled with something that wasn't perfected?

Oh, heaven forbid that anything like that might ever happen in Python. </snark>