Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:33:26 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:54:31 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Russ P. a écrit :
(snip)
In any case, I have suggested that Python should perhaps get a new
keyword, "private" or "priv".
And quite a few people - most of them using Python daily - answered
they didn't wan't it.
Then they don't have to use it.
Yes they would. Because this would become the official way to tell
what's interface and what's implementation, and *this* is the important
point.
But if you have free access to attributes, then *everything* is interface.
Nope.
Lots of people think that double-underscore name mangling is a waste of
time: not strict enough to be useful, not open enough to be Pythonic.
Solution? Don't use double-underscore names.
The name-mangling mechanism is actually useful when you want to make
sure some vital implementation attribute (usually of a class intented to
be extended by the library users) won't be *accidentally* overwritten.
Except it doesn't.
Except it works for all real-life code I've ever seen.
(snip convoluted counter-example)
Steven, sorry for being so pragmatic, but the fact is that, from
experience (not only mine - I'm talking about thousands of man/year
experience), it JustWork(tm).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
