Ian Kelly schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 19:39: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38: >>> While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over module >>> private vs public naming conventions, I now think the OP is probably right >>> and renaming fractions.gcd to fractions._gcd may be a good idea. >> >> Making a public API private is rarely a good idea. It should be enough in >> this case to document the behaviour. >> >> And, believe it or not, it actually is documented: >> >> https://docs.python.org/3.5/library/fractions.html#fractions.gcd > > I don't think documentation is sufficient in this case. This is the > kind of thing though that is easy to forget about if you haven't read > the documentation recently. And with a function like gcd, one > generally wouldn't expect to *need* to read the documentation.
Interesting. I would definitely consult the documentation first thing if I were considering to pass negative values into a gcd function - into any implementation, even if I had been the very author myself, just two months back. I might even take a look at the source to make sure the docs are correct and up to date, and to look for comments that give further insights. But maybe that's just me. Stefan -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
