On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:35 AM Thomas Wouters <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote: [...] > > > I've already brought this up to Petr directly, but I would greatly prefer new > unstable API functions have leading underscores, and that existing functions > being moved to the unstable API are _not_ renamed. > > Renaming existing functions means a lot of unnecessary code churn. It looks > like we have more _-prefixed unstable functions than not, but I don't think > the churn is worth renaming the currently public ones. > > Leading underscores for unstable API functions (that aren't currently public) > means we keep the widely assumed guarantee that Py*/PY* are part of the > public API. The Py_USING_UNSTABLE_API define is per-file, not per symbol/use, > so I would rather not open the door to unintended or unaware use of unstable > APIs. By giving the functions the leading underscore, we're forcing people to > think about -- or check the documentation -- whether the specific function is > okay to use. > > The unstable API is intended for specific use-cases, and I think it's > preferable to put the burden of figuring out if a _Py/_PY* symbol is > acceptable for them to use, rather than putting the burden of figuring out if > a Py/PY* symbol is acceptable up use on _everyone else_. >
I don't think that's necessary. I still see the unstable API as public: it needs more maintenance, but it's not particularly dangerous to use it. I think defining Py_USING_UNSTABLE_API once is quite enough. _______________________________________________ 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/RHQYGRQL6HWT6PC52BRKKVI6CUPHFT36/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
