[Comments from Greg and Moshe on the PEP process.] I don't see the PEP process creating any impediments here. There is almost no process -- Barry assigns numbers to PEPs and Guido rules on them. We've got some rules about what must be in the PEP before it is approved, but almost none about how the PEP is created. There is nothing about the PEP process that prevents a healthy discussion of issues, in private mail or on a mailing list (python-dev or otherwise). We had lots of comments on the statically nested scopes PEP before Barry assigned it a number. An entire PEP could be created and discussed before it gets a number. Someone may want to work on a PEP in privacy and wait to share it until the entire document is complete; that's fine too, provided that revisions are made based on feedback. One goal we had when setting up the PEP process was to limit the amount of repeated discussion on an issue. It's not too uncommon for email discussions to go in circles or to endlessly rehash the same few issues. We hoped that PEP authors would incorporate a discussion of such issues in the PEP and reduce the amount of wasted bandwidth on repetitive discussion. Let's not waste time discussing how to create PEPs and instead actually create them. The clock is ticking for new features in 2.1; the tentative deadline for new PEPs is mid-December. Jeremy
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