Tim Peters wrote: > [Neal Norwitz] > ...
> That was the only point to `__` name-mangling. People who think it's > trying to, e.g., emulate C++'s `private` gimmick are enjoying a > semi-private fantasy ;-) It works fine for its intended use. In theory, I agree. In practice, I don't agree that it works fine. Inevitably, someone finds a need to access a "private" variable in a subclass. Or even in the original class, you find some need to use something like __getattr__ where the implicit name mangling doesn't come into play and you have to emulate the name mangling. Or perhaps someone wants to examine the value of one of these variables in the debugger. In my experience, almost every time someone uses the __private trick, they or someone else comes to regret it. OTOH, explicit name mangling provides the benefits of implicit name mangling without it's drawbacks. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
