Well I _was_ a bit slow on that one ! So I will happily stick to the double underscore.
Regards, Philippe Le mardi 25 janvier 2005 Ã 10:28 +0000, Simon Brunning a Ãcrit : > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:17:13 -0600, Philippe C. Martin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I use "__"for private variables because I must have read on net it was > > the way to do so - yet this seems to have changed - thanks: > > > > http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/pytut/tut_77.html > > Nope, that's still the right way to make a member 'really' private. > Stephen was pointing out a very common Python idiom - "private by > convention", and suggesting that using it would be more appropriate. > > A member with a single preceding underscore is private by convention. > That is to say, there is no mechanism in place to prevent clients of > the class accessing these members, but they should consider themselves > to have been warned that they do so at their own risk. > > If you take the back off the radio, the warranty is void. ;-) > > I (and by inference Stephen) feel that this is a more "Pythonic" > approach. Give the programmer the information that they need, but > don't try to stop them from doing what they need to do. > -- *************************** Philippe C. Martin SnakeCard LLC www.snakecard.com *************************** -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
