(original) (raw)

The wording is totally fine! You might still want to revert it and re-commit it so it doesn't look like a mistake when reviewing the log.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 at 10:45 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:

On 1/20/2016 12:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
\>
\>
\> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 at 19:33 Martin Panter <vadmium+py@gmail.com
\> vadmium%2Bpy@gmail.com>> wrote:
\>
\> On 19 January 2016 at 20:12, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org
\> brett@python.org>> wrote:
\> > Here is a proposed update:
\> >
\> > diff -r 633f51d10a67 pep-0007.txt
\> > --- a/pep-0007.txt Mon Jan 18 10:52:57 2016 -0800
\> > +++ b/pep-0007.txt Tue Jan 19 12:11:44 2016 -0800
\> > @@ -75,9 +75,9 @@
\> > }
\> >
\> > \* Code structure: one space between keywords like \`\`if\`\`,
\> \`\`for\`\` and
\> > - the following left paren; no spaces inside the paren; braces
\> may be
\> > - omitted where C permits but when present, they should be formatted
\> > - as shown::
\> > + the following left paren; no spaces inside the paren; braces are
\> > + strongly preferred but may be omitted where C permits, and they
\> > + should be formatted as shown::
\> >
\> > if (mro != NULL) {
\> > ...
\>
\> This change seems to be accidentally smuggled in, in the guise of a
\> PEP 512 update :)
\>
\>
\> Darn, sorry about that; forgot I had that change sitting in my peps
\> checkout. I'll revert it when I get home (unless the change is actually
\> acceptable to Guido).

I thought that the above was your intentional compromise change given
the range of opinions ;-).

It is, but Guido is the author of PEP 7 and so I didn't want to check in the change without his approval first.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)