[Python-Dev] PEP 350: Codetags (original) (raw)

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Thu Sep 29 18:10:09 CEST 2005

At 09:10 AM 9/28/2005 -0700, Micah Elliott wrote:

I agree that proof of value is necessary. Without a spec though it will be hard to get people to know about a convention/toolset, so it's a bit of a chicken-egg problem -- I can't have a pep until the tools are in use, but the tools won't be used until programmers have means/motivation to use them, a pep.

My point about the lack of motivation was that there was little reason shown why this should be a PEP instead of either:

  1. Documentation for a specific tool, or group of tools
  2. A specific project's process documentation

Are you proposing that this format be used by the Python developers for Python itself? A process spec like this seems orthogonal to Python-the-language.

To put it another way, this seems like writing a PEP on how to do eXtreme Programming, or perhaps a PEP on how the blogging "trackback" protocol works. Certainly you might implement those things using Python, but the spec itself seems entirely orthogonal to Python. I don't really see why it's a PEP, as opposed to just a published spec on your own website, unless you intend for say, the Python stdlib to conform to it.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list