Logged In: YES 
user_id=1160595

An amendment is need for this enhancement request...

The focus at the time of submitting the request was that of 
classes and their private data. It seems the comment in the 
code and the code itself may have been written with the focus 
of modules and the rule that prohibits importing names that 
begin with '_' when an 'import *' is used for a module.

This may open another can of worms altogether. To 
distinguish the 'private' names of modules and classes 
visiblenames() would have to employ different logic for each. 
Also, one would wonder if the elements of an __all__ list 
would have to be considered the non-private names of a 
module or package... From this point, a discussion of what is 
considered ‘private’ could become quite lengthy and also 
subjective.

Although discussion regarding this level of complexity may be 
relevant at some point, the intent of the enhancement request 
was primarily to allow 'private' doc strings to be visible if 
explicitly requested.