On 15 Jul 2013 13:46, "Steven D'Aprano" <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:01:17AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > On 15Jul2013 09:48, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > > | I'd go further, and say that no more private modules should be > > | accepted for the std lib unless they have a leading underscore. I > > | suppose for backwards compatibility reasons, we probably can't go > > | through the std lib and rename private modules to make it clear they > > | are private, but we don't have to accept new ones without the > > | underscore. > > > > I disagree. > > > > A private module is a perfectly sane way to implement the internals > > of something, especially if it is subject to implementation change > > in the future. > > Of course private modules are sane. I never suggested "no new private > modules at all". But putting them in the same namespace as public > modules is not, just to save a leading underscore in the file name.
It's not to save a leading underscore - it's to avoid renaming existing packages like pip and idlelib. Cheers, Nick. > > You don't even have to use the underscore in your own code: > > import _stuff as stuff > > is allowed, and doesn't make _stuff.py public since imported modules are > considered implementation details by default. > > > -- > Steven > _______________________________________________ > 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/ncoghlan%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
