> If people disagree about this view of informational PEPs as purely > advisory, please speak up now so we can discuss this issue. I think *some* informational PEPs (e.g. PEP 1 itself :-) are actually more like standards, while others are, indeed, informational. Maybe we need separate categories? Or simply call the standard ones standard, even if they don't define some Python feature? > (This came up because of the recently-posted PEP 272. Some people on > the python-crypto list don't like PEP 272's interface at all, and > other people think the whole idea of a standard API for block > encryption is useless. It seems impossible to come to consensus, so I > wanted to underscore that informational PEPs don't bind people to the > interfaces they describe.) I certainly prefer that over trying to lobby me for a pronouncement. :-) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4