Message99464
| Author |
andrewclegg |
| Recipients |
andrewclegg, eric.araujo, r.david.murray |
| Date |
2010年02月17日.10:08:39 |
| SpamBayes Score |
9.433287e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1266401323.84.0.579156758147.issue7846@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
"If you give something an _, then it is not considered part of the public API and it (the internal API, not the value) is subject to change, which means you should *not* suggest that users change it. If they find it and want to change it anyway, that's their lookout. That's the consenting adults part :)"
This sums it up well - it should be considered a detail of implementation, thus the _. When I said I wanted to allow the value to be modified, I was thinking of the 'consenting adult' type of usage, not everyday usage. Of course there is no reasonable way to prevent the value being modified anyway.
So - _MAXCACHE can stay where it is, but should not be documented or be included in __all__. Does that seem reasonable? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年02月17日 10:08:44 | andrewclegg | set | recipients:
+ andrewclegg, eric.araujo, r.david.murray |
| 2010年02月17日 10:08:43 | andrewclegg | set | messageid: <1266401323.84.0.579156758147.issue7846@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年02月17日 10:08:40 | andrewclegg | link | issue7846 messages |
| 2010年02月17日 10:08:39 | andrewclegg | create |
|