On Wed, Mar 26, 2014, at 14:25, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 01:55 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
> >It's not a bad idea. (I believe others have proposed an red-black tree.)
> >Certainly, it requires a PEP and a few months of bikesheding, though.
>
> Generally, PEPs aren't necessary for simple or relatively uncontroversial
> additions to existing modules or the stdlib.

I would have said that, too, several years ago, but I think we've been
requiring (or using anyway) PEPs for a lot more things now. OrderedDict
had a PEP for example.

This is probably a natural outcome of the rising popularity of Python in the last few years. Much more users, more core developers, more at stake...
">

(original) (raw)

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin@python.org> wrote:


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014, at 14:25, Barry Warsaw wrote:
\> On Mar 26, 2014, at 01:55 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
\>
\> >It's not a bad idea. (I believe others have proposed an red-black tree.)
\> >Certainly, it requires a PEP and a few months of bikesheding, though.
\>
\> Generally, PEPs aren't necessary for simple or relatively uncontroversial
\> additions to existing modules or the stdlib.

I would have said that, too, several years ago, but I think we've been
requiring (or using anyway) PEPs for a lot more things now. OrderedDict
had a PEP for example.

This is probably a natural outcome of the rising popularity of Python in the last few years. Much more users, more core developers, more at stake...

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.

YMMV but IMHO this is a good thing. PEPs provide a single point of reference to a discussion that would otherwise be spread over multiple centi-threads (not that PEPs don't create centi-threads, but they outlive them in a way).


Eli

�