A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/105650.html below:

[Python-Dev] Breaking undocumented API

[Python-Dev] Breaking undocumented API [Python-Dev] Breaking undocumented APIŁukasz Langa lukasz at langa.pl
Wed Nov 17 13:37:27 CET 2010
Am 17.11.2010 12:57, schrieb Michael Foord:
> On 17/11/2010 11:45, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> The definition of the public/private policy in all its gory detail
>> should be in PEP 8 as Guido suggests.
>
> +1
>

Guido did not said that, though. I'm with Fred and other people that 
agree that PEPs should be more-less immutable. Let's make a new document 
(PEP 88?). The reasoning was well laid out here:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/105641.html
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/105642.html

> Have we agreed the policy though?
>

Everybody has their own opinion on the matter. This discussion thread is 
getting too fractured to actually get us far enough with the 
conclusions. Let's make a PEP and discuss concrete wording on a concrete 
proposal.

>> The library documentation may then contain a note about the difference
>> in compatibility guarantees for public and private APIs, say that any
>> interface and behaviour documented in the manual qualifies as public,
>> then point readers to PEP 8 for the precise details.
>>
>
> +1

Yes, point to PEP 88.


Best regards,
Łukasz Langa

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list

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