Steven Bethard wrote:
> [Please don't top-post]
>
> Steven Bethard wrote:
> > Panos Laganakos wrote:
> >> we usually define private properties and provide public functions
> >> to access them, in the form of:
> >> get { ... } set { ... }
> >>
> >> Should we do the same in Python:
> >>
> >> self.__privateAttr = 'some val'
> >>
> >> def getPrivateAttr(self):
> >> return self.__privateAttr
> >>
> >> Or there's no point in doing so?
> >
> > There is no point in doing so. You should use plain attributes
> > whenever possible (that is, whenever you're really just doing a get or
> > a set, with no computation). The only reason to use getters and
> > setters is so that you can change the implementation later if you need
> > to. But python allows you to do this with properties:
> [snip]
> > Which should not be interpreted as saying you should start writing a
> > bunch of properties now. ;) Instead, only introduce a property when
> > you find that something must remain an attribute (presumably for
> > backwards compatibility reasons) but for whatever reason it now needs
> > some additional computation.
>
> Philippe Martin top-posted:
>> Why is that ? to me it makes sense when I see self.__m_var that I'm
>> dealing with a member variable taht derived classes will not see/access.
>
> If the OP uses a private attribute in combination with a getter and a
> setter, he's basically still exposing the attribute as public, but
> making it harder to get and set. There's no reason to do that. If
> you're going to expose a public API to part of the class that just
> assigns and returns a value (with no computation), you might as well
> make that API an attribute instead of a pair of methods.
>
> STeVe
> [Please don't top-post]
OK I won't, is that a general rule? (I've been top posting for quite some
time now and it is the first time I see that warning)
Philippe
--
---------------------------
"Poignée trop essorée, moulin bien rincé"
Pierre Lafouine
---------------------------
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
