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.
webmaster has already heard from 4 people who cannot install it.
I sent them to the bug tracker or to python-list but they seem
not to have gone either place. Is there some guide I should be
sending them to, 'how to debug installation problems'?
My question is simple: do we officially support Solaris and/or OpenIndiana?
Jesus Cea runs an OpenIndiana buildbot slave:
"Open Indiana 32 bits"
The platform module of Python says "Solaris-2.11", I don't know the
exact OpenIndiana version.
A lot of unit tests fail on this buildbot with MemoryError. I guess
that it's related to Solaris which doesn't allow overcommit
(allocating more memory than available memory on the system), or more
simply because the slave has not enough memory.
There is now an issue which seems specific to OpenIndiana:
It might impact Solaris as well, but the Solaris buildbot is offline
since "684 builds".
Five years ago, I reported a bug because the curses module of Python 3
doesn't build on Solaris nor OpenIndiana anymore. It seems like the
bug was not fixed, and the issue is still open:
So my question is if we officially support Solaris and/or OpenIndiana.
If yes, how can we fix issues when we only have buildbot slave which
has memory errors, and no SSH access to this server?
Solaris doesn't seem to be officially supported in Python, so I
suggest to drop the OpenIndiana buildbot (which is failing since at
least 2 years) and close all Solaris issues as "WONTFIX".
I've activated the webhook for receiving comments on issues when a commit
lands mentioning an issue, so if you see a commit from our hg integration
and another from GitHub, understand that's why (mention issues as "bpo
NNNN" in commit messages if you want to see it in action). If it becomes
too much of a hassle to see the duplicates before we migrate I can turn off
the notifications, but obviously more testing the better. :)
I recently refreshed regular expressions theoretical basics *indulging
in reminiscences* So, I read https://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html
However, reaching the chart in the lower third of the article, I saw
Python 2.4 measured against a naive Thompson matching implementation.
And I was surprised about how bad it performed compared to an
unoptimized version of an older than dirt algorithm.
So, I decided to give it a try with Python2.7 and Python3.5. Eh, voilà,
100% cpu and no results so far. Nothing has changed at all since 2007.
>>> import re
>>> re.match(r'a?'*30 + r'a'*30, 'a'*30)
.... (still waiting)
Quoting from the article: " Some might argue that this test is unfair to
the backtracking implementations, since it focuses on an uncommon corner
case. This argument misses the point: given a choice between an
implementation with a predictable, consistent, fast running time on all
inputs or one that usually runs quickly but can take years of CPU time
(or more) on some inputs, the decision should be easy."
Victor, as the head of Python performance department, and Matthew, as
the maintainer of the new regex module, what is your stance on this
From my perspective, I can say, that regular expressions might worth
optimizing especially for web applications (url matching usually uses
regexes) but also for other applications where I've seen many tight
loops using regexes as well. So, I am probing interest on this topic here.
After reading Instagram's blog article , I’m thinking about how
Python can reduce memory usage of Web applications.
My company creating API server with Flask, SQLAlchemy and typing.
(sorry, it's closed source).
So I can get some data from it's codebase.
Report is here
My thoughts are:
* Interning (None,) seems worth enough.
* There are many empty dicts. Allocating ma_keys lazily may reduce
* Most large strings are docstring. Is it worth enough that option
for trim docstrings, without disabling asserts?
* typing may increase memory footprint, through functions
__attributes__ and abc.
* Can we add option to remove or lazy evaluate __attributes__ ?
* Using string literal for annotating generic type may reduce WeakRef usage.
* Since typing will be used very widely in this year. Need more
I am managing the team responsible for providing python packaging at
Enthought, and I would like to make sure we are providing a good (and
secure) out of the box experience for SSL.
My understanding is that PEP 476 is the latest PEP that concerns this
issue, and that PEP recommends using the system store:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0476/#trust-database. But looking at
binary python distributions from python.org, that does not seem to a.ways
be the case. I looked at the following:
* 3.5.3 from python.org for OS X (64 bits): this uses the old, system
* 3.6.0 from python.org for OS X: this embeds a recent openssl, but ssl
seems to be configured to use non existing paths
(ssl..get_default_verify_paths()), and indeed, cert validation seems to
fail by default with those installers
* 3.6.0 from python.org for windows: I have not found how the ssl module
finds the certificate, but certification seems to work
Are there any official recommendations for downstream packagers beyond PEP
476 ? Is it "acceptable" for downstream packagers to patch python's default
cert locations ?
No Images? Click here
Glazing & Rainscreen Systems - Concept to Completion
ANGLIAN ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING & RAINSCREEN SYSTEMS
**FIRE RATED ALUMINIUM AND STEEL GLAZING SYSTEMS**
JANUARY HAS FLOWN BY...
...BUT YOU CAN BOOK THAT JOB IN WHILE WE'VE STILL GOT CAPACITY
Where has January gone to? Yes, we're now into the last week of the month and wish to say thanks to those clients who took up my offer to look at fast track work following my last email – we still have some immediate capacity at the present time but the 2017 order book is filling fast. So please keep those enquiries flowing - and existing customers - please don’t leave it till the last minute because we always want to say “YES WE CAN” to you especially !!
MTV Studios This month we feature more of our work in London - this time at MTV Studios in Camden, where we have installed curtain walling, complete with bris soleil and various feature cladding, as well as recreating and refurbishing feature elements from previous phases and a new rooflight. Good photographs have been difficult to source due to the extremely tight
nature of this site but we hope to get this job up on our website very soon - especially given the prestigious nature of the work carried out.
Portfolio Youcan see Anglian’s wide portfolio of work here on our website and we are happy to quote Aluminium Glazing and Rainscreen Systems projects from £100k to £2m value.
And finally, throughout 2017 please remember the website WWW.DIYROOFLIGHTS.COM
New customers are finding our SLIMGLAZE and SG2 Rooflights every month. We hope you will take a look because at £298 net ex works for a 1m x 1m double glazed stock unit they are competitively priced and available fast. We still believe that these are the BEST PRICES in the marketplace, but if you know otherwise, please let me know. Triple glazed Rooflights are also available and you can see the range of Rooflights here.
Please bookmark the website WWW.DIYROOFLIGHTS.COM for when you need it !
Best wishes for 2017 and we hope we can do business with you in this new year.
Ask Anglian! UK fabricators and installers that can manufacture bespoke solutions for refurbs and new builds, including curved head and fire rated windows.
Visit the website for more information.
Slimglaze and SG2 Rooflights
Anglian Architectural Slimglaze Rooflights are competitively priced and designed for installation on flat roofs. They come glazed and silicone sealed ready for installation.
Please follow this link for pricing and more information.
You can also see a number of Slimglaze examples here.
"ANGLIAN ARCHITECTURAL MANUFACTURE AND INSTALL FIRE RATED GLAZING SYSTEMS!!"
10 good reasons you should ask us to tender for your next project:
• Expert sub-contractor with big reputation for quality and efficiency
• Integrated capability includes design, surveying, manufacturing and installation
• Complete start-to-finish solution
• In-house design, fabrication and project management
• Critical product specification
• Problem solving
• Industry recognised systems and components
• All Quality Accreditations ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 18001, CHAS
• Long experience working with major Contractors and High Street brands
• Competitive prices and value for money, guaranteed.
For more information please visit the website, phone 01485 520860
ANGLIAN ARCHITECTURAL LIMITED
Unit 1, Mill Lane, Waterford Industrial Est.
Gt. Massingham Norfolk PE32 2HT
Tel: 01485 520860 Fax: 01485 521196
Visit the Anglian Architectural website
Email for more information
Follow us on Twitter
Anglian Architectural are approved suppliers of Aluminium and Steel FIRE RATED GLAZING SYSTEMS and registered with Constructionline
Anglian Architectural Ltd, Unit 1 Mill Lane, Waterford Industrial Estate, Great Massingham, Norfolk PE32 2HT Company No: 04346652
Preferences | Unsubscribe