Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Paul Rubin a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilliers at websiteburo.invalid> writes:
>>> But those occasions are rare enough that having to
>>> enable the feature by saying (e.g.) "@dynamic" before the class
>>> definition doesn't seem like a problem,
>> This imply that you (as the library author) pretend to know by advance
>> when your users (programmers) will have a need for dynamism and when
>> they won't.
> 
> We're not talking about libraries here.

Yes we are. If the default is "non-dynamic", then a class author is in 
charge of explicitely allowing it when *he* see fits.

>  But in fact, we do have
> extensible and non-extensible versions  of certain libraries (pickle,
> StringIO)

what we have are python-coded and highly optimized C-coded versions of 
the same libraries. FWIW, in both cases, the python version came first, 
and the C implementation followed when it was clear that for these 
specific libs, the less-dynamic C version's perf improvement justified 
giving up on dynamism, *given that:*

> so that the user can pick the one that suits their requirements.

As long as it's up to the *user* to choose, that's ok. Your "@dynamic" 
class decorator doesn't have the same implications.