tags:

views:

1332

answers:

7

I am coding a small Python module composed of two parts:

  • some functions defining a public interface,
  • an implementation class used by the above functions, but which is not meaningful outside the module.

At first, I decided to "hide" this implementation class by defining it inside the function using it, but this hampers readability and cannot be used if multiple functions reuse the same class.

So, in addition to comments and docstrings, is there a mechanism to mark a class as "private" or "internal"? I am aware of the underscore mechanism, but as I understand it it only applies to variables, function and methods name.

+4  A: 

The convention is prepend "_" to internal classes, functions, and variables.

Benjamin Peterson
+14  A: 

Use a single underscore prefix:

class _Internal:
    ...

This is the official Python convention for 'internal' symbols; "from module import *" does not import underscore-prefixed objects.

Ferdinand Beyer
I did not know the underscore rule extended to classes. I do not want to clutter my namespace when importing, so this behavior is what I was looking for. Thanks!
Tanelorn
Since you state that this is the "official" python convention, it would be nice with a link. Another post here says that __all__ is the official way and does link to the documentation.
flodin
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/ -- _single_leading_underscore: weak "internal use" indicator. E.g. "from M import *" does not import objects whose name starts with an underscore. -- Classes for internal use have a leading underscore
Miles
A leading underscore is the convention for marking things as internal, "don't mess with this," whereas __all__ is more for modules designed to be used with "from M import *", without necessarily implying that the module users shouldn't touch that class.
Miles
+8  A: 

Define __all__, a list of names that you want to be exported (see documentation).

__all__ = ['public_class'] # don't add here the 'implementation_class'
UncleZeiv
+1: Reference to documentation
S.Lott
+4  A: 

A pattern that I sometimes use is this:

Define a class:

class x(object):
    def doThis(self):
        ...
    def doThat(self):
        ...

Create an instance of the class, overwriting the class name:

x = x()

Define symbols that expose the functionality:

doThis = x.doThis
doThat = x.doThat

Delete the instance itself:

del x

Now you have a module that only exposes your public functions.

theller
that's kinda cool!
ʞɔıu
A: 

Use two underscores to prefix names of "private" identifiers. For classes in a module, use a single leading underscore and they will not be imported using "from module import *".

class _MyInternalClass:
    def __my_private_method:
        pass

(There is no such thing as true "private" in Python. For example, Python just automatically mangles the names of class members with double underscores to be __clssname_mymember. So really, if you know the mangled name you can use the "private" entity anyway. See here. And of course you can choose to manually import "internal" classes if you wanted to).

Christopher Nadeau
Why two _'s? One is sufficient.
S.Lott
A single underscore is sufficient to prevent "import" from importing classes and functions. You need two underscores to induce Python's name mangling feature. Should have been clearer; I edited.
Christopher Nadeau
Now, the follow-up. Why name mangling? What is the possible benefit of that?
S.Lott
The possible benefit is annoying other developers who need access to those variables :)
Richard Levasseur
+2  A: 

To address the issue of design conventions, and as Christopher said, there's really no such thing as "private" in Python. This may sound twisted for someone coming from C/C++ background (like me a while back), but eventually, you'll probably realize following conventions is plenty enough.

Seeing something having an underscore in front should be a good enough hint not to use it directly. If you're concerned with cluttering help(MyClass) output (which is what everyone looks at when searching on how to use a class), the underscored attributes/classes are not included there, so you'll end up just having your "public" interface described.

Plus, having everything public has its own awesome perks, like for instance, you can unit test pretty much anything from outside (which you can't really do with C/C++ private constructs).

Dimitri Tcaciuc
+10  A: 

In short:

  1. You cannot enforce privacy. There are no private classes/methods/functions in Python. At least, not strict privacy as in other languages, such as Java.

  2. You can only indicate/suggest privacy. This follows a convention. The python convention for marking a class/function/method as private is to preface it with an _ (underscore). For example, def _myfunc() or class _MyClass:. You can also create pseudo-privacy by prefacing the method with two underscores (eg: __foo). You cannot access the method directly, but you can still call it through a special prefix using the classname (eg: _classname__foo). So the best you can do is indicate/suggest privacy, not enforce it.

Python is like perl in this respect. To paraphrase a famous line about privacy from the Perl book, the philosophy is that you should stay of the living room because you weren't invited, not because it is defended with a shotgun.

For more information:

Karl Fast
In response to #1, you sort of can enforce privacy of methods. Using a double underscore like __method(self) will make it inaccessible outside of the class. But there is a way around it by calling it like, Foo()._Foo__method(). I guess it just renames it to something more esoteric.
Evan Fosmark