Re: An object-capability subset of Python
"Ben Laurie" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.e.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Mark Seaborn <mrs-ChQETwBkFSdCgCasaBwmdgC/[email protected]> wrote: > "Ben Laurie" <[email protected]> wrote: >> In CaPerl I did run-time checking. > > I don't think it will be necessary to insert run-time checks in > CapPython. CapPython uses the "same-object" meaning of "private" (as > in E) rather than the "same-class" meaning (as in Java). This means > the ability to access private attributes can be determined > syntactically. OK, then I don't understand how CapPython works... > CaPerl uses "same-class"/"same-module" private [1], so it needs to do > run-time checks. Yes, that's actually a weakness in CaPerl. Perhaps I should revisit it and try to make it work properly.