Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> writes: > I don't agree with this. Until it's documented, it's an implementation > detail and should be able to change without notice. If it's an implementation detail, shouldn't it be named as one (i.e. with a leading underscore)? > If someone wants to depend on some undocumented detail of the > directory layout it's their problem (like people depending on bytecode > and other stuff). I would say that names without a single leading underscore are part of the public API, whether documented or not. -- \ “Your [government] representative owes you, not his industry | `\ only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, | _o__) if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” —Edmund Burke, 1774 | Ben Finney
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4