Home Original page

[Python-Dev] pydoc for named tuples is missing methods

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Tue Mar 15 21:11:20 CET 2011 
On 3/15/2011 11:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Michael Foord
> <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>  wrote:
>> On 15/03/2011 07:59, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> While I actually think the current API design is a decent compromise,
>>> another option to consider would be to move the underscore to the
>>> *end* (as_dict_, replace_, make_) as is sometimes done for code that
>>> needs to avoid conflicting with a keyword.
>>>
>>> Namespace collisions with actual fields would remain unlikely, while
>>> pydoc would pick up the new names correctly.
>>>
>>
>> Although it's a backwards incompatible change. Teaching pydoc to recognise
>> the private methods isn't.
>
> If we can find a good way to do it, making pydoc smarter would
> definitely be a nicer option.
>
> If we went the "moving the underscore" route, the old names would
> indeed have to remain for compatibility.

However, pydoc left alone would only pick up (and publicize) the new 
names. One can argue that since the methods are not really private, they 
should have had a trailing rather than leading underscore in the first 
place. Other module classes have recently had method names aliased and 
deprecated for eventual removal, so this would not be a unique move, 
though a class factory is slightly different from a class.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list