[Python-Dev] Tweaking PEP 8 guidelines for use of leading underscores

[Nick Coghlan]

On 15 Jul 2013 13:46, "Steven D'Aprano" <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:01:17AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > On 15Jul2013 09:48, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> > | I'd go further, and say that no more private modules should be
> > | accepted for the std lib unless they have a leading underscore. I
> > | suppose for backwards compatibility reasons, we probably can't go
> > | through the std lib and rename private modules to make it clear they
> > | are private, but we don't have to accept new ones without the
> > | underscore.
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > A private module is a perfectly sane way to implement the internals
> > of something, especially if it is subject to implementation change
> > in the future.
>
> Of course private modules are sane. I never suggested "no new private
> modules at all". But putting them in the same namespace as public
> modules is not, just to save a leading underscore in the file name.

It's not to save a leading underscore - it's to avoid renaming existing
packages like pip and idlelib.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> You don't even have to use the underscore in your own code:
>
> import _stuff as stuff
>
> is allowed, and doesn't make _stuff.py public since imported modules are
> considered implementation details by default.
>
>
> --
> Steven
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130715/3d115c1f/attachment.html>