Maciej Bliziński wrote: > Hello, > > I've come across something that I don't quite understand about > Python's inheritance. Consider the following code snippet: > > class A(object): > def call_bar(self): return self.bar() > def call___bar(self): return self.__bar() > def __bar(self): return "A::__bar()" > def bar(self): return "A::bar()" > > class B(A): > def __bar(self): return "B::__bar()" > def bar(self): return "B::bar()" > > b = B() > print "calling B::call_bar():", b.call_bar() > print "calling B::call___bar():", b.call___bar() > > The result is: > > calling B::call_bar(): B::bar() > calling B::call___bar(): A::__bar() > > In the latter case, it calls the base class' implementation. It > probably goes along with Python's spec, but I found it surprising. I > don't want to expose the __bar() function outside, but on the other > hand i want to defer its implementation to a subclass. It seems like I > need to make it public, doesn't it?
Yep. Just use a single underscore, and that's it. The reason why this doesn't work as expected is that the name-mangling introduced by the leading double underscores is purely a lexical scope based mechanism. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
