Is Python's Double Underscore Notation a True Form of Data Privacy?

Python's Double Underscore Enigma: A False Promise of Privacy

Despite the presence of double underscores, Python's "private" methods are, surprisingly, not entirely private. This apparent paradox arises from Python's unique approach to encapsulation.

When a double underscore prefixes a method or variable name, Python interprets it as an indicator to change the name. Instead of using the original name, it concatenates an underscore, the class name, and the original name. For instance, __myPrivateMethod becomes _MyClass__myPrivateMethod.

This name scrambling technique serves a purpose: it prevents subclasses from accidentally overriding private methods and attributes inherited from their superclasses. Consider the example:

class Foo(object):
    def __init__(self):
        self.__baz = 42
    def foo(self):
        print self.__baz

If a subclass, Bar, defines a member with the same name as the private member of its superclass, Python's name-scrambling mechanism ensures that they remain distinct and avoid potential conflicts.

However, this technique does not prevent deliberate access to private members from outside the class. As the example below demonstrates, one can directly access the renamed private member using the altered name:

x = Foo()
print x._Foo__baz  
# Output: 42

Therefore, while Python's double underscore convention creates the illusion of privacy, it is ultimately a weak form of encapsulation. It prevents accidental method overrides by subclasses, but it cannot safeguard against intentional access from external entities.

The above is the detailed content of Is Python's Double Underscore Notation a True Form of Data Privacy?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!