Skip to content

Conversation

munificent
Copy link
Member

Fix #4479.

This is a much more narrowly scoped solution to #4479. It doesn't change any scoping rules and there's nothing normative. But it aims to guide doc generators to hide the private implementation details of APIs.

If that's not a strong enough guarantee for the core libraries to rely on, then it may make sense for those libraries to not use private initializing formals in public APIs.

But for most users, I think this is plenty robust enough, and it avoids adding unnecessary complexity to the language.

If this one looks OK, then I'll close #4486.

Copy link
Member

@leafpetersen leafpetersen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@lrhn lrhn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. It's focused and precise.

@munificent munificent merged commit 1df31cd into main Aug 26, 2025
4 checks passed
@munificent munificent deleted the 4479-private-names-in-docs branch August 26, 2025 17:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Private named parameter should apply to positional parameters too.
3 participants