is python Object oriented??

[Thorsten Kampe]

* Russ P. (Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:51:11 -0800 (PST))
> On Feb 2, 9:02 am, thmpsn.... at gmail.com wrote:
> Several participants here keep repeating that the leading-underscore
> convention is perfectly adequate. Aside from the aesthetic problem of
> littering code with leading underscores, let me try to explain the
> problem with leading underscores.

A leading underscore is not an aesthetic problem - while I would agree 
that /multiple/ leading or trailing underscores are.
 
> Suppose a library developer (or a module developer on a large team)
> uses leading underscores. Now suppose that, for whatever reason
> (pressure from the users, perhaps), the library developer decides to
> change a "private" attribute to public. Now all occurrences of the
> identifier need to be changed. If an assignment to the previously
> "private" attribute is missed, no warning will be issued (because
> Python allows new attributes to be added anywhere, even completely
> outside the class definition itself). And if the library is widely
> used, the probability of such bugs occurring is very high.
> 
> If a "private" keyword (or equivalent) were available, then the change
> would need to be made in only one location rather than at every
> occurrence off the identifier. That is much less error prone. Sure,
> you can argue (as I'm sure someone will) that the users of the library
> should be more careful. Yes they should, but why not let the language
> help with such low-level details. That's what high-level languages are
> for.

This scenario is highly "supposing" and doesn't look like a real-world-
case to me. But anyway: the obvious solution in my humble opinion would 
be to do something like "public_attribute = _private_attribute". But 
that would be too simple, too "unjavaesque", right?!

Thorsten