[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] CVS: python/nondist/peps pep-0204.txt,1.3,1.4 (original) (raw)

Barry A. Warsaw bwarsaw@beopen.com
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:09:32 -0400 (EDT)

"TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:

TW> Damn, I'm glad I didn't rewrite it on my laptop
TW> yesterday. This looks much better, Barry, thanx ! Want to
TW> co-author it ? :)

Naw, that's what an editor is for (actually, I thought an editor was for completely covering your desktop like lox on a bagel).

TW> (I really need to get myself some proper (X)Emacs education so
TW> I can do cool things like two-spaces-after-finished-sentences
TW> too)

Heh, that's just finger training, but I do it only because it works well with XEmacs's paragraph filling.

TW> Well, that would require me to force the open issues, because
TW> they haven't been decided. They have hardly been discussed ;)
TW> I'm not sure how to properly close them, however. For
TW> instance: I would say "not now" to ranges of something other
TW> than PyInt objects, and the same to the idea of
TW> generators. But the issues remain open for debate in future
TW> versions. Should there be a 'closed issues' section, or should
TW> I just not mention them and have people start a new PEP and
TW> gather the ideas anew when the time comes ?

TW> (And a Decisions (either a consensus one or a BDFL one) would
TW> be nice on whether the two new PyList_ functions should be
TW> part of the API or not. The rest of the issues I can handle.)

The thing to do is to request BDFL pronouncement on those issues for 2.0, and write them up in a "BDFL Pronouncements" section at the end of the PEP. See PEP 201 for an example. You should probably email Guido directly and ask him to rule. If he doesn't, then they'll get vetoed by default once 2.0beta1 is out.

IMO, if some extension of range literals is proposed for a future release of Python, then we'll issue a new PEP for those.

-Barry