Author steven.daprano
Recipients agthorr, belopolsky, christian.heimes, ethan.furman, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, janzert, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, oscarbenjamin, pitrou, ronaldoussoren, sjt, skrah, steven.daprano, stutzbach, terry.reedy, tshepang, vajrasky
Date 2013-10-14.01:19:06
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <20131014011759.GW7989@ando>
In-reply-to <1381656073.6.0.48856375736.issue18606@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Oscar Benjamin has just made a proposal to me off-list that has *almost* 
convinced me to make statistics.sum a private implementation detail, at 
least for the 3.4 release. I won't go into detail about Oscar's 
proposal, but it has caused me to rethink all the arguments for making 
sum public.

Given that the PEP concludes that sum ought to be public, is it 
appropriate to defer that part of it until 3.5 without updating the PEP? 
I'd like to shift sum -> _sum for 3.4, then if Oscar's ideas don't pan 
out, in 3.5 make sum public.

(None of this will effect the public interface for mean, variance, etc.)
History
Date User Action Args
2013-10-14 01:19:06steven.dapranosetrecipients: + steven.daprano, gvanrossum, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, gregory.p.smith, ronaldoussoren, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, belopolsky, pitrou, agthorr, christian.heimes, stutzbach, sjt, skrah, ethan.furman, tshepang, janzert, oscarbenjamin, vajrasky
2013-10-14 01:19:06steven.dapranolinkissue18606 messages
2013-10-14 01:19:06steven.dapranocreate