In article <9rq2v2$fko$1@[...].nl> ,
 m.faassen@[...].nl (Martijn Faassen) wrote:

> The double underscore is required for name mangling, but I don't really
> like the name mangling; it gets in the way. I just want to give the 
> programmer a hint that some attribute is private, and I use a single
> underscore for this, and many Python programmers with me.
> 
> Why does name mangling get in my way? Generally I like to be able to
> reach the private variables in subclasses (I suppose this makes them
> protected in C++ terms, though my C++ is rusty). I also like being
> able to fake things easily in case I need it, for debugging and
> testing purposes. In the end I only want to indicate something is private
> without all the hassle of name mangling.

Personally, I prefer the effect of double underscore for this case, as 
well. I can easily get to the variables by applying the name mangling 
myself, yet cannot accidentally stomp on the variables in a subclass.

To each his/her own.

-- Russell
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list