> 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).