> Why would these be PEPs? I know some of us had discussed that a > style guide should be written as part of the standard documentation. > The PEPs exist largely for developers of Python's interpreters and > standard library. The style guide is for a larger audience, so needs > to be part of the standard documentation. Good point. But... > I stated at some point that I would convert Guido's "essay"; perhaps > that should move up the list of priorities so that the other people > interested can work with it; I seem to recall that you, Greg Wilson, > and possibly Jeremy were interested. The issue is that a new PEP feels much more lightweight than a new manual section. > > Any objections to PEPing these, even though it may be a little while > > before they're fleshed out? Anybody else care to champion them? If > > not, I will do it. > > I'm willing if this is part of the standard documentation. The Python style guide should probably go into the standard docs. The C style guide might as well be one of the meta-PEPs, like the index (maybe call it PEP 0100). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://dinsdale.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