On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote: > 12.10.13 22:56, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла): > >> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:19:16 +0200 >> Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>> Am 12.10.2013 20:20, schrieb Serhiy Storchaka: >>>> >>>> 12.10.13 21:04, Georg Brandl написав(ла): >>>>> >>>>> in light of the recent thread about PEPs not forming part of the docs, >>>>> I've just pushed a change that allows to document C API elements >>>>> not part of the limited API as such. It is done like this: >>>>> >>>>> ... c:function:: int _PyTuple_Resize(PyObject **p, Py_ssize_t newsize) >>>>> :notlimited: >>>>> >>>>> I have not yet begun adding these to the documents; if someone wants to >>>>> help with this I am glad for volunteers. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why this is needed? The limited API is unstable and only developers of >>>> CPython can use it (but they can look in headers). >>> >>> >>> Well, I may be reading PEP 384 wrongly, but the point is exactly to have >>> a >>> *stable* API for *non-core* developers to rely upon, so that they can >>> build >>> extensions that don't need to be recompiled for every version of Python. >> >> >> This is true. >> >> However, I find the proposed markup not very enlightening :-) >> I would prefer if "limited" APIs where marked with a :stableabi: tag. >> >> ("limited API" is really a bad synonym for "stable ABI" IMO) > > > Why not limited private API should be documented at all besides sources?
Code is not documentation. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com