RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 20 16:18:59 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110896.html

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:11:48 -0500, Benjamin Peterson <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 Ã  22:42 -0400, Terry Reedy a Ã©crit :
> >>>
> >>> On 4/19/2011 5:59 PM, victor.stinner wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Â  Â 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? Â 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 believe Jean-Paul was suggesting that just because an interface is
marked as "private" and might go away or change in the future does not
automatically mean it must also be undocumented.  To which I say +1.
(Note that we already have a whole module like that: test.support.)

--
R. David Murray           http://www.bitdance.com

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110896.html below:

Add threading._info() function providing informations about the