On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:49 PM Shreyan Avigyan <[email protected]> wrote: > The benefit of private is actually debugging. If somehow, someone finds that > the private member has changed they would immediately know that it was a > memory leak or the value was changed through a set method defined in the > class (This is one of most important pillar of access modifiers in OOP). > Python's private convention most of the time helps but since it doesn't > enforce it someone just might introduce a bug in an application by modifying > a private member. I just gave an example of security it was not the main > point. >
If someone changes a private member of another class and introduces a bug, isn't that on them? The whole point of a single leading underscore is to declare that this isn't part of the public API (namedtuples aside), so you're on your own if you read it - doubly so if you change it. But if someone changes a private member of another class and *fixes* a bug, surely that's a good thing? ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/P4ZKMFGJFWSIXSVNTCOQAGZU4HGU56IK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
