On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Charles-François Natali <cf.natali at gmail.com> wrote: > Is documenting such implementation details really a good idea? > Apart from preventing further evolutions/improvements/fixes (like the > recent hash randomization), I don't see any benefit in exposing such > details. > FWIW, I clearly remember Josh Bloch warning against this type of > documentation in one of its presentations (and in his excellent > "Effective Java"). We've been weeding a lot of them out over time (e.g. by deleting them rather than updating them when they change). However, keeping them can be useful for a couple of reasons: - sometimes we're explicitly OK with people relying on certain CPython behaviour (or genuinely want to help them understand that behaviour) - sometimes it's useful as an additional hint to authors of other implementations Mostly (as in this case) they're just due to the past blurriness of the distinction between Python-the-language and CPython-the-reference-implementation, though. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
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