Protecting instance variables
d3vvnull at gmail.com
Mon Jul 28 22:52:16 CEST 2008
What about __setattr__()?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus at rath.org> wrote:
> Sorry for replying so late. Your MUA apparently messes up the
> References:, so I saw you reply only now and by coincidence.
> "Diez B. Roggisch" <deets at nospam.web.de> writes:
> > Nikolaus Rath schrieb:
> >> Hello,
> >> I am really surprised that I am asking this question on the mailing
> >> list, but I really couldn't find it on python.org/doc.
> >> Why is there no proper way to protect an instance variable from access
> >> in derived classes?
> >> I can perfectly understand the philosophy behind not protecting them
> >> from access in external code ("protection by convention"), but isn't
> >> it a major design flaw that when designing a derived class I first
> >> have to study the base classes source code? Otherwise I may always
> >> accidentally overwrite an instance variable used by the base class...
> > Here we go again...
> > To directly answer your question: that's what the __ (double
> > underscore) name mangling is for.
> I understand that it is desirable not to completely hide instance
> variables. But it seems silly to me that I should generally prefix
> almost all my instance variables with two underscores.
> I am not so much concerned about data hiding, but about not
> accidentally overwriting a variable of the class I'm inheriting from.
> And, unless I misunderstood something, this is only possible if I'm
> prefixing them with __.
> How is this problem solved in practice? I probably don't have a
> representative sample, but in the libraries that I have been using so
> far, there were a lot of undocumented (in the sense of: not being part
> of the public API) instance variables not prefixed with __. I have
> therefore started to first grep the source of all base classes
> whenever I introduce a new variable in my derived class. Is that
> really the way it's supposed to be? What if one of the base classes
> introduces a new variable at a later point?
> »It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.
> By definition, there are already enough people to do that.«
> -J.H. Hardy
> PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
| _ | * | _ |
| _ | _ | * |
| * | * | * |
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-list