On 11/11/2010 13:51, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Fred Drake<fdr...@acm.org> wrote:
..
Since trace is documented and rx_blank isn't covered, I think it's
pretty clear it was never intended as API. I'd be fine with changing
the visibility of rx_blank, and see no need to change its name.
While I obviously agree with your conclusion, your logic is not
perfect because trace documentation is *much* younger than the module.
How would you apply your reasoning to trace.find_strings()? It is
undocumented, its name is misleading, but it is used in the wild
according to google code search. I draw the line somewhere between
trace.rx_blank and trace.find_strings.
I agree. Known / likely usage has to be the determining factor for
poorly named but undocumented members.
For functions though formal deprecation is easy - so it should only be
an *issue* for constants. (And there the issue is not whether we can
remove but how we do it.)
Michael
--
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree,
on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations
and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements,
licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap,
confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use
policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your
employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in
perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges.
You further represent that you have the authority to release me
from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
_______________________________________________
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
