2011/4/20 R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com>: > 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 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 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.) I think that test.* as a special case is private stuff. -- Regards, Benjamin
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