public/private/stable/unstable

[Ben Finney]

Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:

> Robert Collins wrote:
> > So can we do :
> >  _ -> unsupported-AND-private
> > no _ -> read the docstring
> 
> I would like people to be able to tell, at a glance, when a method is
> completely safe to use.  I think requiring reading the docstring of
> every non _ method would be burdensome.
> 
> How about:
> _ -> unsupported-AND-private unless the docstring says otherwise
> no _ -> supported and public.

A comment on clarity of discussion: The distinction might be clearer
to more readers (e.g. those who will read about this when the
conclusion is documented in HACKING) if the two cases were presented
instead as:

  foo -> (meaning of a name with no leading underscore)
  _foo -> (meaning of a name with a leading underscore)

so that it's clear we're not discussing '_' by itself, or
double-underscores, or other irrelevancies.

Take it for what it's worth.

-- 
 \      “It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.” |
  `\                                                    —Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney