Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: On 11.05.2015 23:20, Steve Dower wrote: > > I guess we need a third opinion. > > For me, the subclasses of CCompiler are undocumented and not a guaranteed > interface (people using them directly are consenting adults). They're also an > eyesore, so if I can clean them up without breaking the CCompiler interface > (or minor version upgrades) then I should.
The distutils interface isn't documented in all details, so the rule of thumb by which everybody operates is that any non-private symbol is part of the public API. FWIW: I don't see a problem with keeping implementations around for older MS VC versions. It's well possible that someone might want to use them for creating a Python version compiled with an older version of MS VC, e.g. in an embedding scenario. And you can still have your new cleaned up version override the default msvccompiler class. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23970> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
