+1 on everything.
2010/11/11 Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopol...@gmail.com>: > 2010/11/11 Michael Foord <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk>: > .. >>> You mean runtime automation, e.g. creating __all__ on the fly omitting >>> underscored names? >>> >> Writing code to generate a __all__ that duplicates the default behaviour >> seems redundant to me. >> > > FWIW, I like having __all__ at the top of the module. It feels like a > table of contents at the start of a chapter. In some cases it may > also serve as an optimization when len(__all__) is much smaller than > len(__dict__). I also don't like _ prefix to become an exclusive > means to express privateness. > > I think the current definition of "public names" is a good one and > just needs to be made more visible in the docs. If the module defines > __all__, that should be the ultimate answer to what is public in that > module. (Users should learn to use help(module) instead of > dir(module) for API discovery.) If __all__ is not defined in the > module, I think it is good to introduce it after a careful review of > what it should contain. And __all__ should never contain names that > start with _. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/g.rodola%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
