Kyle Stanley wrote: > Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > > Either we establish the rule that all non-public > > names must be > > underscored, and do mass renaming through the whole stdlib. Or allow to > > use non-underscored names for internal things and leave the sources in > > Personally, I would be the most in favor of doing a mass renaming through > > stdlib, > at least for any public facing modules (if they don't start with an > underscore, as that > already implies the entire module is internal). Otherwise, I have a feeling > similar issues > will be brought up repeatedly by confused end-users.
Same would happen with a rename where people's code suddenly broke. We don't do renames on purpose without a proper deprecation cycle and doing that en-mass would be extremely disruptive. -Brett > This change would also follow the guideline of "Explicit is better than > implicit" by > explicitly defining any function in a public-facing module as private or > public through > the existence or lack of an underscore. There would be some cost associated > with > implementing this change, but it would definitely be worthwhile if it settled > the public > vs private misunderstandings. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/6SP5WOAKP3PQMDJNAF2GJJQQJMZTCJR4/
