Message160289
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
amaury.forgeotdarc, barry, cjwatson, eric.araujo, lars.gustaebel, pitrou, python-dev, r.david.murray, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2012年05月09日.13:41:46 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1336570782.3352.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<1336570416.31.0.410198838399.issue13815@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> Yeah, I know it is technically private. We still tend to keep names
> around unless there's a good reason to delete them (like using them
> leads to broken code anyway). The code search is some evidence this
> deletion would be OK, but why *not* follow Amaury's suggestion?
I don't see the point of maintaining a private API that's proven to be
unused :) It's an unwarranted maintenance burden (though admittedly a
light one here). |
|