Most object-oriented programming languages have a concept of access control. This is related to abstraction. Some attributes and methods on an object are marked private, meaning only that object can access them. Others are marked protected, meaning only that class and any subclasses have access. The rest are public, meaning any other object is allowed to access them.
Python doesn't do this. Python doesn't really believe in enforcing laws that might someday get in your way. Instead, it provides unenforced guidelines and best practices. Technically, all methods and attributes on a class are publicly available. If we want to suggest that a method should not be used publicly, we can put a note in docstrings indicating that the method is meant for internal use only (preferably, with an explanation of how the public-facing API works!).
By convention, we should also prefix an internal attribute or method with an underscore character, _. Python programmers will interpret this as this is an internal variable, think three times before accessing it directly. But there is nothing inside the interpreter to stop them from accessing it if they think it is in their best interest to do so. Because, if they think so, why should we stop them? We may not have any idea what future uses our classes may be put to.
There's another thing you can do to strongly suggest that outside objects don't access a property or method: prefix it with a double underscore, __. This will perform name mangling on the attribute in question. In essence, name mangling means that the method can still be called by outside objects if they really want to do so, but it requires extra work and is a strong indicator that you demand that your attribute remains private. Here is an example code snippet:
class SecretString:
"""A not-at-all secure way to store a secret string."""
def __init__(self, plain_string, pass_phrase):
self.__plain_string = plain_string
self.__pass_phrase = pass_phrase
def decrypt(self, pass_phrase):
"""Only show the string if the pass_phrase is correct."""
if pass_phrase == self.__pass_phrase:
return self.__plain_string
else:
return ""
If we load this class and test it in the interactive interpreter, we can see that it hides the plain text string from the outside world:
>>> secret_string = SecretString("ACME: Top Secret", "antwerp")
>>> print(secret_string.decrypt("antwerp"))
ACME: Top Secret
>>> print(secret_string.__plain_string)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'SecretString' object has no attribute
'__plain_string'
It looks like it works; nobody can access our plain_string attribute without the passphrase, so it must be safe. Before we get too excited, though, let's see how easy it can be to hack our security:
>>> print(secret_string._SecretString__plain_string) ACME: Top Secret
Oh no! Somebody has discovered our secret string. Good thing we checked.
This is Python name mangling at work. When we use a double underscore, the property is prefixed with _<classname>. When methods in the class internally access the variable, they are automatically unmangled. When external classes wish to access it, they have to do the name mangling themselves. So, name mangling does not guarantee privacy; it only strongly recommends it. Most Python programmers will not touch a double underscore variable on another object unless they have an extremely compelling reason to do so.
However, most Python programmers will not touch a single underscore variable without a compelling reason either. Therefore, there are very few good reasons to use a name-mangled variable in Python, and doing so can cause grief. For example, a name-mangled variable may be useful to an as-yet-unknown subclass, and it would have to do the mangling itself. Let other objects access your hidden information if they want to. Just let them know, using a single-underscore prefix or some clear docstrings, that you think this is not a good idea.
