Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> writes: > On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:47:55 +1100 > Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > That's not what we are talking about; we are talking about their > locations. If the official location is the unittest package, then I > don't see why we should also support undocumented locations just > because they happen to work. So long as the names available for import are such that they indicate whether they're public or implementation-detail (i.e. without a leading single underscore or with one), I agree that this is distinct from the issue of locations on the filesystem. > Otherwise we should also support e.g. "unittest.unlink" if the > unittest package happens to have "from os import unlink" at its top. I > don't think it's reasonable. Hmm. That example does give me pause. I'm trying to think of a simple way that such imports are excluded from being “public interface”, but can't immediately think of one. The distinction is clear in my head, though, for what it's worth :-) -- \ “I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any | `\ view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and | _o__) opposite view.” —Douglas Adams | 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