status of Programming by Contract (PEP 316)?

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> Ricardo Aráoz <ricaraoz at gmail.com> wrote:
>    ...
>>>> 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.