On Nov 10, 2010, at 2:21 PM, James Y Knight wrote: > On the other hand, if you make the primary mechanism to indicate privateness be a leading underscore, that's obvious to everyone. +1. One of the best features of Python is the ability to make a conscious decision to break the interface of a library and just get on with your work, even if your use-case is not really supported, because nothing can stop you calling its private functionality. But, IMHO the worst problem with Python is the fact that you can do this _without realizing it_ and pay a steep maintenance price later when an upgrade of something springs the trap that you had unwittingly set for yourself. The leading-underscore convention is the only thing I've found that even mitigates this problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20101110/fab1d54c/attachment.html>
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