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

[Paul Rubin]

Luis Zarrabeitia <kyrie at uh.cu> writes:
> > Whaat?  Assuming a program is perfect unless a failure is proven
> > is not at all a sane approach to getting reliable software.  It is
> > the person claiming perfection who has to prove the absence of failure.
> 
> No, no. I meant that if pylint works as its specification says it would.

Oh, I see.  Well, that would be ok, except Pylint is not specified as
detecting the types of access that Russ is concerned with.  It can't,
for example, flag uses of setattr that might affect a particular
class.  That would take something a lot fancier.