At 09:10 AM 9/28/2005 -0700, Micah Elliott wrote: >I agree that proof of value is necessary. Without a spec though it >will be hard to get people to know about a convention/toolset, so it's >a bit of a chicken-egg problem -- I can't have a pep until the tools are >in use, but the tools won't be used until programmers have >means/motivation to use them, a pep. My point about the lack of motivation was that there was little reason shown why this should be a PEP instead of either: 1. Documentation for a specific tool, or group of tools 2. A specific project's process documentation Are you proposing that this format be used by the Python developers for Python itself? A process spec like this seems orthogonal to Python-the-language. To put it another way, this seems like writing a PEP on how to do eXtreme Programming, or perhaps a PEP on how the blogging "trackback" protocol works. Certainly you might implement those things using Python, but the spec itself seems entirely orthogonal to Python. I don't really see why it's a PEP, as opposed to just a published spec on your own website, unless you intend for say, the Python stdlib to conform to it.
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