RetroSearch Browse

Thu Apr 30 05:16:29 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-April/089230.html

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
>
> I'm at a loss how to make the text more clear than it already is. I'm
> really not good at writing long essays, with a lot of
> explanatory-but-non-normative text. I also think that explanations do
> not belong in the section titled specification, nor does a full
> description of the status quo belongs into the PEP at all. The reader
> should consult the current Python source code if in doubt what the
> status quo is.

Perhaps not a full description of the status quo, but the PEP definitely
needs a good summary -- remember that PEPs are not just for the time that
they are written, but also for the future.  While telling people to "read
the source, Luke" makes some sense at a specific point in time, I don't
think that requiring a trawl through code history is fair.

And, yes, PEP-writing is painful.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait
until you hire an amateur."  --Red Adair

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-April/089230.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 383 (again)