On 11 Mar, 10:32 pm, pmaupin at gmail.com wrote: >If this seems useful to others, I could try to start a PEP on how the >process would work (but since I'm fairly new, it would be great if >someone could help out a bit by validating my verbiage against some of >the process requirements). Isn't this PEP 297? This does raise an interesting question, though, since I'm about to get into PEP authorship myself. Have I missed an official way to propose alternatives or resurrect a languishing PEP? I'd like very much to propose to obsolete PEP 355 with twisted's FilePath object that I've previously discussed, but ... does that mean adding text to 355? writing a new PEP and referencing it? Also, the language/library evolution PEP I would like to write is basically an expanded version of PEP 5, but that is apparently moribund (and "not followed", according to MvL). Above all, how can I help to motivate timely yea-or-nay decisions from the BDFL or "his chosen consultants"? PEP 1 seems to defer all of these questions to emailing the PEP editor; is that really the best way to go? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070312/b2e0cd4a/attachment-0001.html
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