> [David Goodger] > The desire is not to cull the weak, but to promote the > strong. The desire is to change already-implemented and > implicitly-accepted PEPs to from "Status: Draft" to "Status: Accepted" > or "Status: Final". That's a good goal. > Good points; I agree completely. I have no problem leaving doomed (or > currently perceived as doomed) PEPs to remain in limbo until the > author(s) choose to seal their fate. Great. I have one of those ;) > >> 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.) > > Clarification: this paragraph addresses a completely separate issue than > the proposed addition above. I have sensed some confusion as to what > constitutes an acceptable PEP, and a hand-waving blurb giving a vague > definition seems useful. That's reasonable. I'm not sure it would have filtered out anything except an April Fools pep. > What's your opinion now, post-clarifications? Please treat the two > parts separately. +1 +0 BTW, thanks for your work as PEP editor. Keep it up, Raymond Hettinger
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