[XML-SIG] Ugh! Why are DOM access methods spelled with a leading '_'?

Greg Stein gstein@lyra.org
Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:24:07 -0700

On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 10:08:38AM -0600, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > > Jim Fulton wrote:
> > I've also looked at http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/00-01-12,
> > which is similar and also leaves attribute mapping unspecified. :(
> Just as a note to all, on the do-sig, Jim was already pointed to the right 
> clause in the Python/CORBA mapping, and Martin von Lowis also explained why it 
> is so (avoiding IDL name-clashes).
> The remaining debate is whether to follow the Python/CORBA mapping.  I say, no 
> reason not to do so.  There is nothing normative about leading "_" being 
> private that I know of.  It ends up being a question of style versus spec 
> unification, and I'm always wont to go for the latter.

Nothing normative? Come on. That is simply an antagonistic position.

"from foo import *" is bad taste, but it codifies the notion of "_" being
private. (symbols starting with "_" are not imported)

Years and years of "_" usage meaning "private" also codify it. And you say
"normative" ... what? Do we need to write an RFC to satisfy you? And do you
also recognize that many things that occur in the RFC are there simply
because they *ARE* de facto standards?

I believe it is an entirely untenable position to state that "_" does not
mean "private".

IMO, the Python/CORBA mapping is simply stupid if it demands leading
underscores for any public item. Way stupid, and totally ignorant of
Python's de facto standards.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/