Jim Fulton wrote at 2004-1-15 17:23 -0500:
BTW, telling me that an algorithm has changed doesn't constitute a use case. :) I know that algorithm has changed. I assert that we don't need the feature that the change broke. I am open to evidence to the contrary.
Do you have a convincing reason to change the behaviour? I argue here with consistency: When the "setDefaultAccess" function is called, it should always be called with sensible (and consistent) arguments. In my view, it is not consistent, that the function is called with the attribute name when the attribute is accessed via "attribute access syntax" but called with "None" when the same attribute it accessed via "item access syntax". For security checks, the accessed object should be the driving factor and not the particular way the access is made. When we do not get this consistent, we open new hidden security holes (as one must always think: can this same object be accessed also in a different way and how have I to secure this way). -- Dieter