Alexander Eisenhuth wrote: > As I figured out there is only public and private possible as speakin in > "C++ manner". Are you all happy with it. What does "the zen of python" > say to that design? (protected is useless?) > Ask it yourself: >>> import this
> > class A: > def __init__(self): > self.__z = 1 > self._z = 2 > self.z = 3 > def _getX(self): > return "X" > def __getY(self): > return "Y" > def doAnything(self): > print self.__getY() > > > class B(A): > def __init__(self): > A.__init__(self) > print dir (self) > >>> b = B() > ['_A__getY', '_A__z', '__doc__', '__init__', '__module__', '_getX', > '_z', 'doAnything', 'z'] > > I was a bit surprised about '_A__getY' and '_A__z'. > In what way exactly? "__*"-type methods are meant to be private to the exact class they were defined in, so thats why you get these names prefixed with "_A__". If you're confused why that happens at all, look for "name mangling". > What would you say to a C++ Programmer about class interfaces in big > Python systems? What is the idea behind the _ and __ naming. Use or > don't use '_' methods ? (As Designer of the software, as Programmer of > the software) > Don't worry about information-hiding too much. If anyone is determined, they can get at any information they want. You should just rely on people not directly using a single-underscore method; thats how python does it: trust instead of force. Use the double underscore technique only when you *need* it, that is, you don't want a method to be overridden by a subclass -- for whatever reason that might be. Generally you can just forget about this type of methods. /W -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
