On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Michael Foord <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15/03/2011 07:59, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> While I actually think the current API design is a decent compromise, >> another option to consider would be to move the underscore to the >> *end* (as_dict_, replace_, make_) as is sometimes done for code that >> needs to avoid conflicting with a keyword. >> >> Namespace collisions with actual fields would remain unlikely, while >> pydoc would pick up the new names correctly. >> > > Although it's a backwards incompatible change. Teaching pydoc to recognise > the private methods isn't.
If we can find a good way to do it, making pydoc smarter would definitely be a nicer option. If we went the "moving the underscore" route, the old names would indeed have to remain for compatibility. Just one of many reasons it isn't a great solution :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
