> Who are we writing PEPs for ? For you, Guido ? For the python-dev team as a > whole ? For python-list ? For the whole of the Python community ? A > collection of parts of one or more of the above ? Answer that question and > the faults in all current PEPs become obvious ;) The PEPs should be written for review of proposed changes for those who are serious about language design and implementation. I consider myself an element of that set but not its only member! For this audience, exactness and conciseness of description count; "selling" the feature to the general audience is not desirable. A rationale is necessary; this should include a motivation for the feature and discussion of (reasonable) alternatives and objections that have been brougt up (if any). A PEP should also be the place to point to when someone starts rehashing an old discussion. --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