Hi all,
I've the following code snippet that puzzles me:
class Base(object):
__v, u = "Base v", "Base u"
def __init__(self):
print self.__v, self.u
class Derived(Base):
__v, u = "Derived v", "Derived u"
def __init__(self):
print self.__v, self.u
super(Derived, self).__init__()
d = Derived()
When run (Python 2.4.2, IDLE 1.1.2), it produces:
>>>
Derived v Derived u
Base v Derived u
>>>
What I expected was that all four emitted strings would contain "Derived".
I conclude that there is something about the cluster of concepts at
hand this hobbyist doesn't understand :-) I suspect that the problem
is with my understanding of the name mangling mechanism, but then
again, I'm the confused one.
I'd thought the point of the mangling was to make it sufficiently
difficult for client code to access the mangled name so as to
constitute a strong recommendation to leave the name alone. But, since
the access is all from within method code, I didn't expect any
mangling issues here. Since d is a Derived, I expected any method of d
trying to find d.__v to first check if there is a Derived.__v and only
then pass to Base.__v. Obviously, that's not what's happening.
So, is this behaviour entirely by design and my surprise entirely the
product of misconception or is there an element of side effect of the
mangling mechanism at issue? Or some other consideration altogether?
Thanks and best,
Brian vdB
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
