On 01:11 pm, benjamin at python.org wrote: >2011/4/20 <exarkun at twistedmatrix.com>: >>On 08:20 am, victor.stinner at haypocalc.com wrote: >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>>Le mardi 19 avril 2011 à 22:42 -0400, Terry Reedy a écrit : >>>> >>>>On 4/19/2011 5:59 PM, victor.stinner wrote: >>>> >>>> > Issue #11223: Add threading._info() function providing >>>>informations >>>> > about the >>>> > thread implementation. >>>> >>>>Since this is being documented, making it part of the public api, >>>>why >>>>does it have a leading underscore? >>> >> >>Can I propose something wildly radical? Maybe the guarantees made >>about >>whether an API will be available in future versions of Python >>(ostensibly >>what "public" vs "private" is for) should not be tightly coupled to >>the >>decision about whether to bother to explain what an API does? > >With what criteria would you propose to replace it with? I'm not sure what kind of criteria you're thinking of. I'm only suggesting that: 1) Document whatever you want (preferably as much as possible) 2) Make "privateness" defined by whether there is a leading underscore It is a big mistake to think that documentation isn't necessary for things just because you don't want application developers to use them. Maintainers benefit from it just as much. Jean-Paul
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