On Jun 4, 2:58 pm, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 4, 4:29 am, NickC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 4:09 am, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What is it about leading underscores that bothers me? To me, they are > > > like a small pebble in your shoe while you are on a hike. Yes, you can > > > live with it, and it does no harm, but you still want to get rid of it. > > > With leading underscores, you can see *at the point of dereference* > > that the code is accessing private data. With a "this is private" > > keyword you have no idea whether you're accessing private or public > > data, because the two namespaces get conflated together. > > That is true. But with the "priv" keyword you'll discover quickly > enough that you are trying to access private data (as soon as you run > the program). And even if a "priv" keyword is added, you are still > free to use the leading underscore convention if you wish. > > The idea of being able to discern properties of an object by its name > alone is something that is not normally done in programming in > general. Yes, of course you should choose identifiers to be > descriptive of what they represent in the real world, but you don't > use names like "intCount," "floatWeight," or "MyClassMyObject" would > you? Why not? That would tell you the type of the object at the "point > of dereferencing," wouldn't it?
Sounds familiar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
