> I propose adding the following text:
> ... The BDFL may also initiate a PEP review, first notifying the
> PEP author(s).
Periodic updates to the parade-of-peps serves equally well.
> For a PEP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria.
> It must be a clear description of the proposed enhancement. The
> enhancement must represent a net improvement. The implementation,
> if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the
> interpreter unduly. Finally, a proposed enhancement must be
> "pythonic" in order to be accepted by the BDFL. (However,
> "pythonic" is an imprecise term; it may be defined as whatever is
> acceptable to the BDFL. This logic is intentionally circular.)
Peps can go through a lot of stages before they get to this point.
That can include having other peps explore other options;
refinements to the idea, etc.
>From these proposals and the annoucement earlier this week,
I sense a desire to have fewer peps and to more rapidly get
them out of the draft status.
In general, I don't think this is a good idea. If someone wants
to do a write-up and weather the ensuing firestorm, that is
enough for me. If it has to sit for a few years before becoming
obviously good or bad, that's fine too.
Also, some ideas need time. My generator attributes idea had
no chance for Py2.3. After people spend a year or so using
generators, they might collectively begin to see a need for it.
Also, someone may be able to help express the rationale
more clearly. As written, the rationale would result in instant
death for the pep. After a pep dies, it becomes a permanent
impediment for similar ideas even if someone comes up
with better use cases or a slightly improved implementation.
The first time I proposed something like a DictMixin class,
it was violently shot down. A few months later, I had an
improved version and those with a long memory immediately
pointed out, "hey, that was shot down". After one more
round, it was accepted, the alpha reviewers loved it, and
it got applied through-out the library. Early rejection of
peps will doom some useful ideas before they have a
fighting chance. The authors can read the parade of peps
and adapt or withdraw as appropriate.
IOW, I like the process as it stands and am -1 on the
amendment. It should be up to the pep author to
decide when to stick his head in the guillotine to
see what happens :)
Raymond Hettinger
"Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
iii) this is true but quite unimportant.
iv) I always said so."
- J.B.S. Haldane, 1963
"All great truths began as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw
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