is python Object oriented??

[thmpsn.m.k at gmail.com]

On Jan 30, 12:15 am, Chris Rebert <c... at rebertia.com> wrote:
> - Python supports encapsulation. Prefixing an attribute/method with an
> underscore indicates that other programmers should treat it as
> 'private'. However, unlike B&D languages, Python itself does nothing
> to enforce this privacy, leaving it instead to the good judgement of
> the programmer, under the philosophy that "We're all consenting adults
> here".

How do you know? (I know I'm not.)

Seriously, though, the lack of private members does allow for ugly
hacks in user code, and you know there are always ugly hackers.

> This allows people to meddle with internals, at their own risk,
> if it ends up being absolutely necessary.

If it ends up being necessary, the class's design is flawed. (Though
in this case, the flaw is easily solved by simply providing a getter.)

> The enforcement point is
> largely academic anyway, as most languages' reflection APIs let you
> poke at ostensibly "private" things.

If you're talking about getters, then note that this doesn't let you
modify the member (unless there's a corresponding setter).

In the absence of private/protected, Python should at least provide
something similar to C++'s 'const' or Java's 'final'. (Similar, not
equivalent, because then the object itself wouldn't be able to
manipulate its own members!)