A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-April/035200.html below:

[Python-Dev] proposed amendments to PEP 1

[Python-Dev] proposed amendments to PEP 1 [Python-Dev] proposed amendments to PEP 1Guido van Rossum guido@python.org
Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:54:23 -0400
> There's some truth to that.  OTOH, until the BDFL declares something
> to be an ex-PEP, I don't think BDFL rejection of a PEP means that it
> is forever dead -- it just requires substantial revision to
> resurrect it.  The point of PEPs is to prevent rehashing of old
> subjects in the same way, not to prevent new ideas from restarting
> discussions.

In general, it's better to create a new PEP if you have a new idea.
The only reason to revive a rejected PEP would be if the reason for
rejecting the specific idea put forth in the PEP becomes invalid.  A
PEP should propose a specific solution.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.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