[Python-Dev] proposed amendments to PEP 1 (original) (raw)

Raymond Hettinger python@rcn.com
Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:03:43 -0400

[David Goodger] The desire is not to cull the weak, but to promote the strong. The desire is to change already-implemented and implicitly-accepted PEPs to from "Status: Draft" to "Status: Accepted" or "Status: Final".

That's a good goal.

Good points; I agree completely. I have no problem leaving doomed (or currently perceived as doomed) PEPs to remain in limbo until the author(s) choose to seal their fate.

Great. I have one of those ;)

>> For a PEP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It >> must be a clear description of the proposed enhancement. The >> enhancement must represent a net improvement. The implementation, >> if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the >> interpreter unduly. Finally, a proposed enhancement must be >> "pythonic" in order to be accepted by the BDFL. (However, >> "pythonic" is an imprecise term; it may be defined as whatever is >> acceptable to the BDFL. This logic is intentionally circular.)

Clarification: this paragraph addresses a completely separate issue than the proposed addition above. I have sensed some confusion as to what constitutes an acceptable PEP, and a hand-waving blurb giving a vague definition seems useful.

That's reasonable. I'm not sure it would have filtered out anything except an April Fools pep.

What's your opinion now, post-clarifications? Please treat the two parts separately.

+1 +0

BTW, thanks for your work as PEP editor. Keep it up,

Raymond Hettinger