Subclassing A Class With Private Members

One of the really nice things about python is the simplicity with which you can name variables that have the same name as the accessor: self.__value = 1 def value(): return se

Solution 1:

Not conveniently, without further breaking encapsulation. The double-underscore attribute is name-mangled by prepending '_ClassName' for the class it is being accessed in. So, if you have a 'ContainerThing' class that has a '__value' attribute, the attribute is actually being stored as '_ContainerThing__value'. Changing the class name (or refactoring where the attribute is assigned to) would mean breaking all subclasses that try to access that attribute.

This is exactly why the double-underscore name-mangling (which is not really "private", just "inconvenient") is a bad idea to use. Just use a single leading underscore. Everyone will know not to touch your 'private' attribute and you will still be able to access it in subclasses and other situations where it's darned handy. The name-mangling of double-underscore attributes is useful only to avoid name-clashes for attributes that are truly specific to a particular class, which is extremely rare. It provides no extra 'security' since even the name-mangled attributes are trivially accessible.

For the record, '__value' and 'value' (and '_value') are not the same name. The underscores are part of the name.

Solution 2:

"I know this seems to go against the general idea of private and public" Not really "against", just different from C++ and Java.

Private -- as implemented in C++ and Java is not a very useful concept. It helps, sometimes, to isolate implementation details. But it is way overused.

Python names beginning with two __ are special and you should not, as a normal thing, be defining attributes with names like this. Names with __ are special and part of the implementation. And exposed for your use.

Names beginning with one _ are "private". Sometimes they are concealed, a little. Most of the time, the "consenting adults" rule applies -- don't use them foolishly, they're subject to change without notice.

We put "private" in quotes because it's just an agreement between you and your users. You've marked things with _. Your users (and yourself) should honor that.

Often, we have method function names with a leading _ to indicate that we consider them to be "private" and subject to change without notice.

The endless getters and setters that Java requires aren't as often used in Python. Python introspection is more flexible, you have access to an object's internal dictionary of attribute values, and you have first class functions like getattr() and setattr().

Further, you have the property() function which is often used to bind getters and setters to a single name that behaves like a simple attribute, but is actually well-defined method function calls.

Solution 3:

Not sure of where to cite it from, but the following statement in regard to access protection is Pythonic canon: "We're all consenting adults here".

Just as Thomas Wouters has stated, a single leading underscore is the idiomatic way of marking an attribute as being a part of the object's internal state. Two underscores just provides name mangling to prevent easy access to the attribute.

After that, you should just expect that the client of your library won't go and shoot themselves in the foot by meddling with the "private" attributes.