> On 10 Jul 2025, at 14:37, Marc Mutz via Development
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm coming back to this thread, because this conclusion:
>
>
> Confidential
> On 18.03.24 16:28, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> to use those APIs you have to read the code. And
>> then you’ll see that they are
On Thursday, 10 July 2025 06:01:25 Pacific Daylight Time Fabian Kosmale via
Development wrote:
> I really don't like "undocumented API can change", especially not for
> members. Using such a member is one tab completion away
>
> I'm willing to make some amends (function which can't be used withou
On Thursday, 10 July 2025 05:37:47 Pacific Daylight Time Marc Mutz via
Development wrote:
> With the above rule, undocumented is equivalent to private. In particular,
> you have to assume that undocumented API changes at any time.
>
> We now see how loud the outcry is when such changes, routinely
Hi All,
in my opinion we have an attention redirection here.
We can of course start considering whether a particular change applies to the
rules,
provided the is a gain the change brings.
The original rename doesn't bring any value, so discussing if it was applying
to the rules doesn't move us
Hi,
as one of the people complaining to Marc on the change:
I really don't like "undocumented API can change", especially not for
members. Using such a member is one tab completion away
I'm willing to make some amends (function which can't be used without
also using private API, like a funct
Hi,
I'm coming back to this thread, because this conclusion:
Confidential
On 18.03.24 16:28, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
[...]
>
> to use those APIs you have to read the code. And
> then you’ll see that they are either undocumented, or documented as
> \internal.
>
> You can still use them, but you
