Will python never intend to support private, protected and public?

[Fredrik Lundh]

Tony Meyer wrote:

> That elaborates on the intent, it doesn't change it.  The sentence
> clearly says that the intent is to easily define private variables,
> whereas Simon said that it the intent was not to provide a mechanism
> for making variables private.

Are you aware of the fact that computer terms might have slightly different
meanings in different languages, due to differences in language details and
semantics?  Of course they're "private variables", but they're "private" in the
Python sense, and they were added to Python to solve problems that were
observed in Python, not because someone thought it was important to cater
to confused C++ or Java programmers.

And as Simon said, and the original thread showed, the problem they were
(and are) intended to address is accidental namespace collisions when sub-
classing.

If we'd really needed "true" private variables, don't you think we would have
been able to come up with a design that provided that?  It just wasn't important,
because Python is Python.

</F>