On Jan 17, 10:34Â*am, "iMath" <2281570...@qq.com> wrote:
> To make a method or attribute private (inaccessible from the outside), simply start its
> name with two underscores
>
> but there is another saying goes:
> Beginning a variable name with a single underscore indicates that the variable should be treated as ‘private’.
> I test both these 2 rules ,it seems only names that start with two underscores are REAL private methods or attributes .
> so what is your opinion about single leading underscore and private methods or attributes？
The key word in the second quote is "indicates". Placing a single
underscore before an attribute name does nothing but _show_ other
programmers that you consider this to be part of the implementation
rather than the interface, and that you make no guarantees of its
continued existence over time.
More importantly, however: there is no real concept of "private"
attributes in Python. Try this at the command prompt:
>>> ap._A__a
'__a'
It's still readable, and it's still writable too. The double-
underscore naming is referred to as "name mangling" and while it's
often passed off as the way to make private methods in Python (the
tutorial even states this), what it is really intended for is to
ensure that multiple inheritance works correctly:
>>> class A(object):
.... foo = 'A'
.... def get_A_foo(self):
.... return self.foo
....
>>> class B(object):
.... foo = 'B'
.... def get_B_foo(self):
.... return self.foo
....
>>> class C(A, B):
.... def __init__(self):
.... super(C, self).__init__()
....
>>> c = C()
>>> c.get_A_foo()
'A'
>>> c.get_B_foo()
'A'
Here, we haven't mangled the attribute 'foo' on either A or B, so on
the instance of C, which inherits from both, the inherited methods are
referring to the same attribute, which is A's in this case due to the
method resolution order. By re-naming 'foo' on both A and B to
'__foo', each can then refer to their _own_ attribute, and also allow
for C to have its own 'foo' attribute which doesn't conflict with
either of them:
>>> class A(object):
.... __foo = 'A'
.... def get_A_foo(self):
.... return self.__foo
....
>>> class B(object):
.... __foo = 'B'
.... def get_B_foo(self):
.... return self.__foo
....
>>> class C(A, B):
.... foo = 'C'
.... def __init__(self):
.... super(C, self).__init__()
....
>>> c = C()
>>> c.get_A_foo()
'A'
>>> c.get_B_foo()
'B'
>>> c.foo
'C'
There is no way to make an externally private attribute. This is
generally considered a good thing by most Python developers: if I
_need_ to access your class's implementation, I can do so, but the
name mangling forces me to be aware that this is something you don't
recommend doing. You'll often hear the term "consenting adults" used
to refer to this, meaning we can all decide for ourselves if we're
willing to risk using an implementation detail.
|
Similar Threads
