is python Object oriented??

[Rhodri James]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:37:57 -0000, Russ P. <Russ.Paielli at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 2, 7:48 pm, "Rhodri James" <rho... at wildebst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:16:01 -0000, Russ P. <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>> > Here we go again. If you have access to the source code (as you nearly
>> > always do with Python code), then "breaking the language-enforced data
>> > hiding" is a trivial matter of deleting the word "private" (or
>> > equivalent).
>>
>> If it's that trivial to defeat something that its proponents appear to
>> want to be close to an iron-clad guarantee, what on earth is the point
>> of using "private" in the first place?
>
> If a library developer releases the source code of a library, any user
> can trivially "defeat" the access restrictions. But if a team of
> developers is checking in code for a project, the leader(s) of the
> project can insist that the access restrictions be respected to
> simplify the management of interfaces. The larger the team, the more
> useful that can be. That's why Java, C++, Ada, Scala, and other
> languages have a "private" keyword.

Indeed he can.  He can even do that in Python; it just requires a little
self-discipline from the team, or a validation script on the code
repository if he really doesn't trust them.  Not only can this be done
without forcing the rest of the world to play, it makes things a little
less daunting when those nice clean interfaces turn out to be
incomplete/too slow/not what you thought.

-- 
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste Herder to the Masses