A separate doc change issue and PR would be fine.  Should we add a note explaining the module name as a contraction of an originally restricted scope?  Make me nosy and invite review.

Actually, a doc issue for the module as is should *fully* explain readmodule_ex first (its entry is now incomplete), and then explain readmodule as a filtered version kept for back compatibility.  This could be a separate PR on the same issue, written by one of us, if too much for your friend.

I understood limits of this PR. I should have said change notes were intended for your 'second PR'. 

Changing the return value to a Module should mean a third function, which would then become the main function, as readmodule_ex would then be Module.children.

I have thought about making it possible to browse non-source modules, at least for the module being browsed.  I might implement that first in IDLE.