On 2008-06-05, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:21:41 +0000, Antoon Pardon wrote: > >> On 2008-06-04, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:34:58 +0000, Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> >>>> On 2008-06-04, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> it makes sense to me to also test if they work as documented. >>>>>> >>>>>> If they affect the behaviour of some public component, that's where >>>>>> the documentation should be. >>>>> >>>>> As I said they are public themselves for someone. >>>> >>>> Isn't that contradictory: "Public for someone" I always >>>> thought "public" meant accessible to virtually anyone. >>>> Not to only someone. >>> >>> For the programmer who writes or uses the private API it isn't really >>> "private", he must document it or know how it works. >> >> How does that make it not private. Private has never meant "accessible >> to noone". And sure he must document it and know how it works. But that >> documentation can remain private, limited to the developers of the >> product. It doesn't have to be publicly documented. > > If the audience is the programmer(s) who implement the "private" API it > is not private but public. Even the "public" API is somewhat "private" to > a user of a program that uses that API. The public is not virtually > anyone here. Depends at which level you look in the system.
I think there is a general consensus about on what level to look when we are talking about private and public attributes. You can of course start talking at a whole different level and as such use these words with a meaning different than normally understood. But that will just make it harder for you to get your ideas accross. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list