https://pypi.python.org/pypi/apipkg provides a much more effective way to denote API than an _ On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:20 PM, R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:46:34 -0400, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 7/16/2013 9:39 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:19:21 +1000, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
For example, pkgutil includes classes with single-underscore methods, which I take as private. It also has a function simplegeneric, which is undocumented and not listed in __all__. In in the absence of even a comment saying "Don't use this", I take it as an oversight, not policy that simplegeneric is private.
I think you'd be wrong about that, though. simplegeneric should really be treated as private. I'm speaking here not about the general principle of the thing, but about my understanding of simplegeneric's specific history.
I think Steven (valid) point is "Why not, then, say it is internal either in docs or name?"-- which in this case would be in the docs.
I don't think that's what he was saying; but yes, we should do that :)
--David _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/dholth%40gmail.com