https://pypi.python.org/pypi/apipkg provides a much more effective way to denote API than an _
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:20 PM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:46:34 -0400, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: >> On 7/16/2013 9:39 AM, R. David Murray wrote: >> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:19:21 +1000, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> >> > wrote: >> >> >> For example, pkgutil includes classes with single-underscore methods, >> >> which I take as private. It also has a function simplegeneric, which is >> >> undocumented and not listed in __all__. In in the absence of even a >> >> comment saying "Don't use this", I take it as an oversight, not policy >> >> that simplegeneric is private. >> > >> > I think you'd be wrong about that, though. simplegeneric should really be >> > treated as private. I'm speaking here not about the general principle of >> > the thing, but about my understanding of simplegeneric's specific history. >> >> I think Steven (valid) point is "Why not, then, say it is internal >> either in docs or name?"-- which in this case would be in the docs. > > I don't think that's what he was saying; but yes, we should do that :) > > --David > _______________________________________________ > 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/dholth%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
