On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> The problem with intentionally completely not documenting names publicly
>> accessible in the stdlib code or from the interactive interpreter is that
>> the non-documentation is not do
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 8/6/2011 8:29 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Do you realize that __xxx__ names can have any semantics they darn
>> well please?
>
> That does not seem to be to be the issue Cristoff raised.
I apologize, I was too fast on this one. My only
On 8/6/2011 8:29 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Do you realize that __xxx__ names can have any semantics they darn
well please?
That does not seem to be to be the issue Cristoff raised.
If a particular __xxx__ name (or some aspect of it) is
undocumented that's not a bug (not even a doc bug), it
Guido,
thanks for the quick reply! Of course I am aware that __xxx__ names are
special. But I was assuming that the features of a python interpreter
which are necessary to execute the pure python modules of the standard
library are supposed to be documented.
Christoph
_
Christoph,
Do you realize that __xxx__ names can have any semantics they darn
well please? If a particular __xxx__ name (or some aspect of it) is
undocumented that's not a bug (not even a doc bug), it just means
"hands off".
That said, there may well be a bug, but it would be in the behavior of
t
