On 16 July 2013 12:20, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:25 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> >> If your code has no obvious, documented convention at all for what's >> internal and what is not, they are no worse off. >> >> If you do have a documented convention for internal implementation details, >> then you are no worse off. "I have better things to do than PEP8-ify old, >> working, stable code" is a perfectly acceptable answer. "I have better >> things to do than PEP9-ify old, working, stable code, but if you want to >> provide regression tests and a working patch, I'll let you do so" might be >> an even better one :-) > > Welp, I guess I'm logically boxed in then. Thanks for showing me the > errors in my thinking. Should be no problem to manage the updating of > that 500K lines of public code. > > /scarcasm
How do get from "If this doesn't apply to a module, just add something like 'This is an internal API' or 'This module includes internal APIs, consult the documentation for the public API' to the module docstring" to "updating 500k lines of public code"? The version in Barry's email that you replied to has that escape clause in it, so the fact it was missing from my original text doesn't justify this reaction. Cheers, Nick. P.S. Note that, while I'm trying to account for it in this particular case, we're never going to let the fact that many people misuse PEP 8 by considering it as a holy standard that should be followed by all Python code everywhere stop us from including updates that are valid specifically for the standard library. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
