On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:45:48PM -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>I think *some* informational PEPs (e.g. PEP 1 itself :-) are actually
>more like standards, while others are, indeed, informational. Maybe
>we need separate categories? Or simply call the standard ones
>standard, even if they don't define some Python feature?
PEP 1 doesn't specify anything related to programming or documenting
Python, though. I don't think it's worth defining a new category to
distinguish PEP 1 from PEP 248 (Database API) or PEP 272.
Regarding Jeremy's suggestion of introducing an "Experimental"
category: what's the distinction be between "Experimental" and
"Informational", if neither status carries any implication that users
should conform to the PEP? For example, would PEP 272 be Experimental
or Informational, and why?
Aahz wrote:
>I'm not sure what the point of an informational
>PEP that has no consensus is, though; shouldn't such documentation be
>spread by other means?
PEPs seem nicely suited for this, and it's how RFCs are used, too. I
could just stick it on a random Web page someplace, but PEPs, like
RFCs, are much less likely to vanish and are much shorter to
reference.
--amk (www.amk.ca)
Given the choice between a good text editor and a good source control system,
i'll take the source control, and use "cat" to write my code.
-- Greg Wilson, at IPC9
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