GCD in Fractions
stefan_ml at behnel.de
Tue Sep 23 20:09:23 CEST 2014
Ian Kelly schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 19:39:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
>>> While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over module
>>> private vs public naming conventions, I now think the OP is probably right
>>> and renaming fractions.gcd to fractions._gcd may be a good idea.
>> Making a public API private is rarely a good idea. It should be enough in
>> this case to document the behaviour.
>> And, believe it or not, it actually is documented:
> I don't think documentation is sufficient in this case. This is the
> kind of thing though that is easy to forget about if you haven't read
> the documentation recently. And with a function like gcd, one
> generally wouldn't expect to *need* to read the documentation.
Interesting. I would definitely consult the documentation first thing if I
were considering to pass negative values into a gcd function - into any
implementation, even if I had been the very author myself, just two months
back. I might even take a look at the source to make sure the docs are
correct and up to date, and to look for comments that give further
insights. But maybe that's just me.
More information about the Python-list