On 11/11/2010 15:17, Łukasz Langa wrote: > Am 11.11.2010 16:05, schrieb Barry Warsaw: >> Agreed, though I wouldn't *remove* __all__'s, I would establish a >> convention >> where they can be generated programmatically. Keeping __all__ in >> sync with >> the code is a PITA. It screams for automation. > > You mean runtime automation, e.g. creating __all__ on the fly omitting > underscored names? > Writing code to generate a __all__ that duplicates the default behaviour seems redundant to me. Michael -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
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