[Python-3000] feature proposal process
aahz at pythoncraft.com
Tue Mar 21 17:09:14 CET 2006
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I guess the real question is how stringent we should be with the PEP
> process. For instance, do we really need a PEP for changing
> dict.keys() to return an iterator and to drop dict.iterkeys()? This
> has been planned for so long, I say it is not needed. PEP 3000 can be
> augmented to make sure all obvious changes have a basic explanation.
> The over-arching question I am posing is how granular we should be
> with the PEPs. Should some meta-PEPs in terms of design be hashed out
> first so we have general guidelines to follow. I say we should get at
> least some rough ideas down.
My take is that we should include all changes in some PEP. I think it
makes good sense to group small changes into a single related PEP. The
main reason for this is to provide a formalized mechanism to record
changes in these small changes ;-) as we work through the Py3K process.
Thus, we will need to be careful to continuously record the current
state in the PEPs.
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"19. A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming,
is not worth knowing." --Alan Perlis
More information about the Python-3000