On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:21:41 +0000, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> On 2008-06-04, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:34:58 +0000, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-06-04, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> it makes sense to me to also test if they work as documented.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they affect the behaviour of some public component, that's where
>>>>> the documentation should be.
>>>>
>>>> As I said they are public themselves for someone.
>>>
>>> Isn't that contradictory: "Public for someone" I always
>>> thought "public" meant accessible to virtually anyone.
>>> Not to only someone.
>>
>> For the programmer who writes or uses the private API it isn't really
>> "private", he must document it or know how it works.
>
> How does that make it not private. Private has never meant "accessible
> to noone". And sure he must document it and know how it works. But that
> documentation can remain private, limited to the developers of the
> product. It doesn't have to be publicly documented.
If the audience is the programmer(s) who implement the "private" API it
is not private but public. Even the "public" API is somewhat "private" to
a user of a program that uses that API. The public is not virtually
anyone here. Depends at which level you look in the system.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
