It has been a while since I posted a copy of PEP 1 to the mailing
lists and newsgroups. I've recently done some updating of a few
sections, so in the interest of gaining wider community participation
in the Python development process, I'm posting the latest revision of
PEP 1 here. A version of the PEP is always available on-line at
-------------------- snip snip --------------------
Title: PEP Purpose and Guidelines
Version: $Revision: 1.36 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2002/07/29 18:34:59 $
Author: Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton
Post-History: 21-Mar-2001, 29-Jul-2002
What is a PEP?
PEP stands for Python Enhancement Proposal. A PEP is a design
document providing information to the Python community, or
describing a new feature for Python. The PEP should provide a
concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for
We intend PEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new
features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for
documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python. The
PEP author is responsible for building consensus within the
community and documenting dissenting opinions.
Because the PEPs are maintained as plain text files under CVS
control, their revision history is the historical record of the
Kinds of PEPs
There are two kinds of PEPs. A standards track PEP describes a
new feature or implementation for Python. An informational PEP
describes a Python design issue, or provides general guidelines or
information to the Python community, but does not propose a new
feature. Informational PEPs do not necessarily represent a Python
community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors
are free to ignore informational PEPs or follow their advice.
PEP Work Flow
The PEP editor, Barry Warsaw <peps(a)python.org>, assigns numbers
for each PEP and changes its status.
The PEP process begins with a new idea for Python. It is highly
recommended that a single PEP contain a single key proposal or new
idea. The more focussed the PEP, the more successfully it tends
to be. The PEP editor reserves the right to reject PEP proposals
if they appear too unfocussed or too broad. If in doubt, split
your PEP into several well-focussed ones.
Each PEP must have a champion -- someone who writes the PEP using
the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in
the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus
around the idea. The PEP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first
attempt to ascertain whether the idea is PEP-able. Small
enhancements or patches often don't need a PEP and can be injected
into the Python development work flow with a patch submission to
the SourceForge patch manager or feature request tracker.
The PEP champion then emails the PEP editor <peps(a)python.org> with
a proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the PEP.
This draft must be written in PEP style as described below.
If the PEP editor approves, he will assign the PEP a number, label
it as standards track or informational, give it status 'draft',
and create and check-in the initial draft of the PEP. The PEP
editor will not unreasonably deny a PEP. Reasons for denying PEP
status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound,
not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards
compatibility, or not in keeping with the Python philosophy. The
BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for Life, Guido van Rossum) can be
consulted during the approval phase, and is the final arbitrator
of the draft's PEP-ability.
If a pre-PEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-PEP
to the comp.lang.python newsgroup (a.k.a. python-list(a)python.org
mailing list) to help flesh it out, gain feedback and consensus
from the community at large, and improve the PEP for
The author of the PEP is then responsible for posting the PEP to
the community forums, and marshaling community support for it. As
updates are necessary, the PEP author can check in new versions if
they have CVS commit permissions, or can email new PEP versions to
the PEP editor for committing.
Standards track PEPs consists of two parts, a design document and
a reference implementation. The PEP should be reviewed and
accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a
reference implementation will aid people in studying the PEP.
Standards Track PEPs must include an implementation - in the form
of code, patch, or URL to same - before it can be considered
PEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a
PEP before submitting it for review. A PEP that has not been
discussed on python-list(a)python.org and/or python-dev(a)python.org
will not be accepted. However, wherever possible, long open-ended
discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies
to keep the discussions efficient include, setting up a separate
SIG mailing list for the topic, having the PEP author accept
private comments in the early design phases, etc. PEP authors
should use their discretion here.
Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP
editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL
and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send
it back to the author(s) for revision.
Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be
completed. When the reference implementation is complete and
accepted by the BDFL, the status will be changed to `Final.'
A PEP can also be assigned status `Deferred.' The PEP author or
editor can assign the PEP this status when no progress is being
made on the PEP. Once a PEP is deferred, the PEP editor can
re-assign it to draft status.
A PEP can also be `Rejected'. Perhaps after all is said and done
it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of
PEPs can also be replaced by a different PEP, rendering the
original obsolete. This is intended for Informational PEPs, where
version 2 of an API can replace version 1.
PEP work flow is as follows:
Draft -> Accepted -> Final -> Replaced
Some informational PEPs may also have a status of `Active' if they
are never meant to be completed. E.g. PEP 1.
What belongs in a successful PEP?
Each PEP should have the following parts:
1. Preamble -- RFC822 style headers containing meta-data about the
PEP, including the PEP number, a short descriptive title
(limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and
optionally the contact info for each author, etc.
2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical
issue being addressed.
3. Copyright/public domain -- Each PEP must either be explicitly
labelled as placed in the public domain (see this PEP as an
example) or licensed under the Open Publication License.
4. Specification -- The technical specification should describe
the syntax and semantics of any new language feature. The
specification should be detailed enough to allow competing,
interoperable implementations for any of the current Python
platforms (CPython, JPython, Python .NET).
5. Motivation -- The motivation is critical for PEPs that want to
change the Python language. It should clearly explain why the
existing language specification is inadequate to address the
problem that the PEP solves. PEP submissions without
sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
6. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by
describing what motivated the design and why particular design
decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that
were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is
supported in other languages.
The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the
community and discuss important objections or concerns raised
7. Backwards Compatibility -- All PEPs that introduce backwards
incompatibilities must include a section describing these
incompatibilities and their severity. The PEP must explain how
the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. PEP
submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility
treatise may be rejected outright.
8. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must
be completed before any PEP is given status 'Final,' but it
need not be completed before the PEP is accepted. It is better
to finish the specification and rationale first and reach
consensus on it before writing code.
The final implementation must include test code and
documentation appropriate for either the Python language
reference or the standard library reference.
PEPs are written in plain ASCII text, and should adhere to a
rigid style. There is a Python script that parses this style and
converts the plain text PEP to HTML for viewing on the web.
PEP 9 contains a boilerplate template you can use to get
started writing your PEP.
Each PEP must begin with an RFC822 style header preamble. The
headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with
`*' are optional and are described below. All other headers are
PEP: <pep number>
Title: <pep title>
Version: <cvs version string>
Last-Modified: <cvs date string>
Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
* Discussions-To: <email address>
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Final | Replaced>
Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
* Requires: <pep numbers>
Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
* Python-Version: <version number>
Post-History: <dates of postings to python-list and python-dev>
* Replaces: <pep number>
* Replaced-By: <pep number>
The Author: header lists the names and optionally, the email
addresses of all the authors/owners of the PEP. The format of the
author entry should be
address(a)dom.ain (Random J. User)
if the email address is included, and just
Random J. User
if the address is not given. If there are multiple authors, each
should be on a separate line following RFC 822 continuation line
conventions. Note that personal email addresses in PEPs will be
obscured as a defense against spam harvesters.
Standards track PEPs must have a Python-Version: header which
indicates the version of Python that the feature will be released
with. Informational PEPs do not need a Python-Version: header.
While a PEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial
Draft phase), a Discussions-To: header will indicate the mailing
list or URL where the PEP is being discussed. No Discussions-To:
header is necessary if the PEP is being discussed privately with
the author, or on the python-list or python-dev email mailing
lists. Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To: header
will not be obscured.
Created: records the date that the PEP was assigned a number,
while Post-History: is used to record the dates of when new
versions of the PEP are posted to python-list and/or python-dev.
Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g. 14-Aug-2001.
PEPs may have a Requires: header, indicating the PEP numbers that
this PEP depends on.
PEPs may also have a Replaced-By: header indicating that a PEP has
been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the
number of the PEP that replaces the current document. The newer
PEP must have a Replaces: header containing the number of the PEP
that it rendered obsolete.
PEP Formatting Requirements
PEP headings must begin in column zero and the initial letter of
each word must be capitalized as in book titles. Acronyms should
be in all capitals. The body of each section must be indented 4
spaces. Code samples inside body sections should be indented a
further 4 spaces, and other indentation can be used as required to
make the text readable. You must use two blank lines between the
last line of a section's body and the next section heading.
You must adhere to the Emacs convention of adding two spaces at
the end of every sentence. You should fill your paragraphs to
column 70, but under no circumstances should your lines extend
past column 79. If your code samples spill over column 79, you
should rewrite them.
Tab characters must never appear in the document at all. A PEP
should include the standard Emacs stanza included by example at
the bottom of this PEP.
A PEP must contain a Copyright section, and it is strongly
recommended to put the PEP in the public domain.
When referencing an external web page in the body of a PEP, you
should include the title of the page in the text, with a
footnote reference to the URL. Do not include the URL in the body
text of the PEP. E.g.
Refer to the Python Language web site  for more details.
When referring to another PEP, include the PEP number in the body
text, such as "PEP 1". The title may optionally appear. Add a
footnote reference that includes the PEP's title and author. It
may optionally include the explicit URL on a separate line, but
only in the References section. Note that the pep2html.py script
will calculate URLs automatically, e.g.:
Refer to PEP 1  for more information about PEP style
 PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton
If you decide to provide an explicit URL for a PEP, please use
this as the URL template:
PEP numbers in URLs must be padded with zeros from the left, so as
to be exactly 4 characters wide, however PEP numbers in text are
Reporting PEP Bugs, or Submitting PEP Updates
How you report a bug, or submit a PEP update depends on several
factors, such as the maturity of the PEP, the preferences of the
PEP author, and the nature of your comments. For the early draft
stages of the PEP, it's probably best to send your comments and
changes directly to the PEP author. For more mature, or finished
PEPs you may want to submit corrections to the SourceForge bug
manager or better yet, the SourceForge patch manager so that
your changes don't get lost. If the PEP author is a SF developer,
assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise assign it to the PEP
When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first
with the PEP author and/or PEP editor.
PEP authors who are also SF committers, can update the PEPs
themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.
Remember to also push the formatted PEP text out to the web by
doing the following:
% python pep2html.py -i NUM
where NUM is the number of the PEP you want to push out. See
% python pep2html.py --help
Transferring PEP Ownership
It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of PEPs to
a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original
author as a co-author of the transferred PEP, but that's really up
to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is
because the original author no longer has the time or interest in
updating it or following through with the PEP process, or has
fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not
responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is
because you don't agree with the direction of the PEP. We try to
build consensus around a PEP, but if that's not possible, you can
always submit a competing PEP.
If you are interested assuming ownership of a PEP, send a message
asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the
PEP editor <peps(a)python.org>. If the original author doesn't
respond to email in a timely manner, the PEP editor will make a
unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can be
References and Footnotes
 This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands
for retrieving older revisions. For those without direct access
to the CVS tree, you can browse the current and past PEP revisions
via the SourceForge web site at
 The script referred to here is pep2html.py, which lives in
the same directory in the CVS tree as the PEPs themselves.
Try "pep2html.py --help" for details.
The URL for viewing PEPs on the web is
 PEP 9, Sample PEP Template
This document has been placed in the public domain.
On 15-04-15, Akira Li <4kir4.1i(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Isaac Schwabacher <ischwabacher(a)wisc.edu> writes:
> > On 15-04-15, Akira Li <4kir4.1i(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Isaac Schwabacher <ischwabacher(a)wisc.edu> writes:
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > I know that you can do datetime.now(tz), and you can do datetime(2013,
> >> > 11, 3, 1, 30, tzinfo=zoneinfo('America/Chicago')), but not being able
> >> > to add a time zone to an existing naive datetime is painful (and
> >> > strptime doesn't even let you pass in a time zone).
> >> `.now(tz)` is correct. `datetime(..., tzinfo=tz)`) is wrong: if tz is a
> >> pytz timezone then you may get a wrong tzinfo (LMT), you should use
> >> `tz.localize(naive_dt, is_dst=False|True|None)` instead.
> > The whole point of this thread is to finalize PEP 431, which fixes the
> > problem for which `localize()` and `normalize()` are workarounds. When
> > this is done, `datetime(..., tzinfo=tz)` will be correct.
> > ijs
> The input time is ambiguous. Even if we assume PEP 431 is implemented in
> some form, your code is still missing isdst parameter (or the
> analog). PEP 431 won't fix it; it can't resolve the ambiguity by
> itself. Notice is_dst paramter in the `tz.localize()` call (current
...yeah, I forgot to throw that in there. It was supposed to be there all along. Nothing to see here, move along.
> .now(tz) works even during end-of-DST transitions (current API) when the
> local time is ambiguous.
I know that. That's what I was complaining about-- I was trying to talk about how astimezone() was going to be inadequate even after the PEP was implemented because it couldn't turn naive datetimes into aware ones, and people were giving examples that started with aware datetimes generated by now(tz), which completely went around the point I was trying to make. But it looks like astimezone() is going to grow an is_dst parameter, and everything will be OK.
recently, I stumbled over the new 3.5 release and in doing so over PEP 0492.
After careful consideration and after reading many blog posts of various
coders, I first would like to thank Yury Selivanov and everybody else
who brought PEP 0492 to its final state. I therefore considered usage
within our projects, however, still find hazy items in PEP 0492. So, I
would like to contribute my thoughts on this in order to either increase
my understanding or even improve Python's async capability.
In order to do this, I need a clarification regarding the rationale
behind the async keyword. The PEP rationalizes its introduction with:
"If useful() [...] would become a regular python function, [...]
important() would be broken."
What bothers me is, why should important() be broken in that case?
Sven R. Kunze
I expect this has been asked before, but I can't find out much about it...
I'm trying to embed Python as a scripting language and I need to capture
the output of PyRun_String(), PyEval_EvalCode(), or whatever as a char *
(or wchar_t * or whatever) rather than have it go to stdout.
Python 3.3.2 under plain C, not C++
And, while I'm interrupting everyone's afternoon, another question: if
I pass Py_single_input to PyRun_String() or
Py_CompileString()/PyEval_EvalCode(), it accepts statements like "a=10"
and can then properly do stuff like "print(a)". If I use Py_eval_input
instead, I get error messages. In both cases, I'm using the same
global_dict and local_dict, if that makes any difference. What am I
Firstly, a big sorry to all those unittest issues I haven't commented on.
Turns out I simply don't get mail from the issue tracker. :(.
Who should I speak to to try and debug this?
In the interim, if you want me to look at an issue please ping me on
IRC (lifeless) or mail me directly.
Robert Collins <rbtcollins(a)hp.com>
HP Converged Cloud
On 28.06.15 08:03, raymond.hettinger wrote:
> changeset: 96697:637e197be547
> user: Raymond Hettinger <python(a)rcn.com>
> date: Sat Jun 27 22:03:35 2015 -0700
> Minor refactoring. Move reference count logic into function that adds entry.
This looks not correct. key should be increfed before calling
PyObject_RichCompareBool() for the same reason as startkey.
A type slot for tp_as_async has already been added (which is good!) but we
do not currently seem to have protocol functions for awaitable types.
I would expect to find an Awaitable Protocol listed under Abstract Objects
Layer, with functions like PyAwait_Check, PyAwaitIter_Check, and
Specifically its currently difficult to test whether an object is awaitable
or an awaitable iterable, or use said objects from the c-api without
relying on method testing/calling mechanisms.
As you may know, Steve Dower put significant effort into rewriting the
project files used by the Windows build as part of moving to VC14 as
the official compiler for Python 3.5. Compared to the project files
for 3.4 (and older), the new project files are smaller, cleaner,
simpler, more easily extensible, and in some cases quite a bit more
I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7, and Intel is
willing to fund that work as part of making Python ICC compilable on
all platforms they support since it makes building Python 2.7 with ICC
much easier. I have no intention of changing the version of MSVC used
for official 2.7 builds, it *will* remain at MSVC 9.0 (VS 2008) as
determined the last time we had a thread about it. VS 2010 and newer
can access older compilers (back to 2008) as a 'PlatformToolset' if
they're installed, so all we have to do is set the PlatformToolset in
the projects at 'v90'. Backporting the projects would make it easier
to build 2.7 with a newer compiler, but that's already possible if
somebody wants to put enough work into it, the default will be the old
compiler, and we can emit big scary warnings if somebody does use a
compiler other than v90.
With the stipulation that the officially supported compiler won't
change, I want to make sure there's no major opposition to replacing
the old project files in PCbuild. The old files would move to
PC\VS9.0, so they'll still be available and usable if necessary.
Using the backported project files to build 2.7 would require two
versions of Visual Studio to be installed; VS2010 (or newer) would be
required in addition to VS2008. All Windows core developers should
already have VS2010 for Python 3.4 (and/or VS2015 for 3.5) and I
expect that anyone else who cares enough to still have VS2008 probably
has (or can easily get) one of the free editions of VS 2010 or newer,
so I don't consider this to be a major issue.
The backported files could be added alongside the old files in
PCbuild, in a better-named 'NewPCbuild' directory, or in a
subdirectory of PC. I would rather replace the old project files in
PCbuild, though; I'd like for the backported files to be the
recommended way to build, complete with support from PCbuild/build.bat
which would make the new project files the default for the buildbots.
I have a work-in-progress branch with the backported files in PCbuild,
which you can find at
are still a couple bugs to work out (and a couple unrelated changes to
PC/pyconfig.h), but most everything works as expected.
Looking forward to hearing others' opinions,