On Mon, Apr 28, 2003, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > From these proposals and the annoucement earlier this week, > I sense a desire to have fewer peps and to more rapidly get > them out of the draft status. There's some truth to that. OTOH, until the BDFL declares something to be an ex-PEP, I don't think BDFL rejection of a PEP means that it is forever dead -- it just requires substantial revision to resurrect it. The point of PEPs is to prevent rehashing of old subjects in the same way, not to prevent new ideas from restarting discussions. -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "In many ways, it's a dull language, borrowing solid old concepts from many other languages & styles: boring syntax, unsurprising semantics, few automatic coercions, etc etc. But that's one of the things I like about it." --Tim Peters on Python, 16 Sep 93
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