On 01:11 pm, benja...@python.org wrote:
2011/4/20 <exar...@twistedmatrix.com>:
On 08:20 am, victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
Hi,
Le mardi 19 avril 2011 � 22:42 -0400, Terry Reedy a �crit :
On 4/19/2011 5:59 PM, victor.stinner wrote:
> Issue #11223: Add threading._info() function providing
informations
> about the
> thread implementation.
Since this is being documented, making it part of the public api,
why
does it have a leading underscore?
Can I propose something wildly radical? Maybe the guarantees made
about
whether an API will be available in future versions of Python
(ostensibly
what "public" vs "private" is for) should not be tightly coupled to
the
decision about whether to bother to explain what an API does?
With what criteria would you propose to replace it with?
I'm not sure what kind of criteria you're thinking of. I'm only
suggesting that:
1) Document whatever you want (preferably as much as possible)
2) Make "privateness" defined by whether there is a leading underscore
It is a big mistake to think that documentation isn't necessary for
things just because you don't want application developers to use them.
Maintainers benefit from it just as much.
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
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
