On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Michael Foord <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> > wrote: >> On 01/11/2010 14:48, Steven Bethard wrote: >>> But then I wonder - is __all__ considered part of the public API of a >>> module? Or is it okay to just remove it and assume that no one should >>> have been accessing it directly anyway? >> >> Isn't it better to add the missing elements - what is the problem with that >> approach? > > Agreed, that's what I would do.
Ok, sounds good. > It is also possible to write automated tests that flag likely missing > symbols in __all__ (as well as symbols in __all__ missing from the > module). Yep, I plan on doing that. I already had a test something like this to remind me how I broke __all__ before. ;-) Steve -- Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis? Did Steve tell you that? --- The Hiphopopotamus _______________________________________________ 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
