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/archive%40mail-archive.com
