We've got to the stage now with PEP 646 that we're feeling pretty happy
with it. So far though we've mainly been workshopping it in typing-sig, so
as PEP 1 requires we're asking for some feedback here too before submitting
it to the steering council.
If you have time over the next couple of weeks, please take a look at the
current draft and let us know your thoughts:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0646/ (Note that the final couple of
sections are out of date; https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1880
clarifies which grammar changes would be required, now that PEP 637 has
been rejected. We also have a second PR in progress at
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1881 clarifying some of the motivation.)
Matthew and Pradeep
CPython is slow. We all know that, yet little is done to fix it.
I'd like to change that.
I have a plan to speed up CPython by a factor of five over the next few
years. But it needs funding.
I am aware that there have been several promised speed ups in the past
that have failed. You might wonder why this is different.
Here are three reasons:
1. I already have working code for the first stage.
2. I'm not promising a silver bullet. I recognize that this is a
substantial amount of work and needs funding.
3. I have extensive experience in VM implementation, not to mention a
PhD in the subject.
My ideas for possible funding, as well as the actual plan of
development, can be found here:
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
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.
From Thomas Wouters, on behalf of and with full support of the Python Steering Council:
This discussion seems to have died down a little, but I still want to make a few things clear:
Yes, this is a political decision. Very many decisions are political. The existence of an open-source project is inherently political. The decision to try and make python-dev more welcoming, more open, more helpful is also a political decision -- one that the SC feels is absolutely necessary for the long-term health of the Python language. Not wanting to be bothered by political decisions is a political decision; it’s a decision that you’re happy with politics as they are. I’m afraid you can’t avoid politics.
This isn’t just about ‘master’ being rooted in slavery. This is about what the community sees and does. As I mentioned before, we’re not leading the pack in this, we’re merely following along with others (like, say, Django). There are undoubtedly other terms and practices that are genuinely offensive, and the decision on how to handle them will be taken on a case-by-case basis, weighing the cost and the benefit in each case.
While you may feel the benefit of this change is small and that it has no real impact, we believe that there is little cost to making this change. We believe this change, while a minor inconvenience to some, helps demonstrate our commitment to acting in the best interests of Python's future. Failure to make a small sacrifice, such as this, signals that the Python core development community would be unlikely to undertake real change for greater benefits.
This isn’t happening because GitHub/Microsoft made a political decision. It’s happening because it is incredibly easy to make this move, many projects have already done this, and it reflects badly on any project not making this change.
Speaking for the whole SC in this,
We would like to present for feedback a new version of PEP 654, which
incorporates the feedback we received in the discussions so far:
The reference implementation has also been updated along with the PEP.
The changes we made since the first post are:
1. Instead of ExceptionGroup(BaseException), we will have two new builtin
types: BaseExceptionGroup(BaseException) and
This is so that "except Exception" catches ExceptionGroups (but not
BaseExceptionGroups). BaseExceptionGroup.__new__ inspects the wrapped
exceptions, and if they are all Exception subclasses, it creates an
ExceptionGroup instead of a BaseExceptionGroup.
2. The exception group classes are not final - they can be subclassed and
split()/subgroup() work correctly if the subclass overrides the derive()
instance method as described here:
3. We had some good suggestions on formatting exception groups, which we
have implemented as you can see in the output shown for the examples in the
4. We expanded the section on handling Exception Groups, to show how
subgroup can be used (with side effects) to do something for each leaf
exception, and how to iterate correctly when the tracebacks of leaf
exceptions are needed:
5. We expanded the sections on rationale and backwards compatibility to
explain our premise and expectations regarding how exception groups will be
used and how the transition to using them will be managed.
6. We added several items to the rejected ideas section.
We did not receive any comments (or make any changes) to the proposed
semantics of except*, hopefully this is because everyone thought they are
Irit, Yury and Guido
I just got the reply below sent directly to my personal account, and I'm
confused about what's going on. If it's just a one off I'll chalk it up to
random internet weirdness, but if other folks are getting these too it
might be something the list admins should look into? Or... something?
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Hoi lam Poon <gillcovid19(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 02:01
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Re: PEP 654: Exception Groups and except* [REPOST]
To: Nathaniel Smith <njs(a)pobox.com>
Stop pretending, I can definitely get the key control file, your working
group, all past actions and instructions cannot be cleared in front of me
at all. You have been playing around for a few days, and I won’t stop you.
Your face? I won’t, you know, you can’t drive me away, and that file is
all, after I get it, you will be convicted even if you disband, I swear
在 2021年4月23日 週五 16:23，Nathaniel Smith <njs(a)pobox.com> 寫道：
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:50 PM Guido van Rossum <guido(a)python.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:26 PM Nathaniel Smith <njs(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> >> Sure. This was in my list of reasons why the backwards compatibility
> >> tradeoffs are forcing us into awkward compromises. I only elaborated
> >> on it b/c in your last email you said you didn't understand why this
> >> was a problem :-). And except* is definitely useful. But I think there
> >> are options for 'except' that haven't been considered fully.
> > Do you have any suggestions, or are you just telling us to think harder?
> Because we've already thought as hard as we could and within all the
> constraints (backwards compatibility and otherwise) we just couldn't think
> of a better one.
> The main possibility that I don't think we've examined fully is to
> make 'except' blocks fire multiple times when there are multiple
> exceptions. We ruled it out early b/c it's incompatible with nested
> EGs, but if flat EGs are better anyway, then the balance shifts around
> and it might land somewhere different. it's a tricky discussion
> though, b/c both the current proposal and the alternative have very
> complex implications and downsides. So we probably shouldn't get too
> distracted by that until after the flat vs nested discussion has
> settled down more.
> I'm not trying to filibuster here -- I really want some form of EGs to
> land. I think python has the potential to be the most elegant and
> accessible language around for writing concurrent programs, and EGs
> are a key part of that. I don't want to fight about anything; I just
> want to work together to make sure we have a full picture of our
> options, so we can be confident we're making the best choice.
> > The real cost here is that we would need a new "TracebackGroup" concept,
> since the internal data structures and APIs keep the traceback chain and
> the exception object separated until the exception is caught. In our early
> design stages we actually explored this and the complexity of the data
> structures was painful. We eventually realized that we didn't need this
> concept at all, and the result is much clearer, despite what you seem to
> I'm not talking about TracebackGroups (at least, I think I'm not?). I
> think it can be done with exactly our current data structures, nothing
> - When an EG is raised, build the traceback for just that EG while
> it's unwinding. This means if any C code peeks at exc_info while it's
> in flight, it'll only see the current branch of the traceback tree,
> but that seems fine.
> - When the exception is caught and we go to write back the traceback
> to its __traceback__ attribute, instead "peek through" the EG and
> append the built-up traceback entries onto each of the constituent
> You could get cleverer for efficiency, but that basic concept seems
> pretty simple and viable to me. What am I missing?
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev(a)python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave(a)python.org
> Message archived at
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
When one writes one's "blurb" for the changelog, in what tense should it
be? I mostly see entries in present tense:
bpo-43660: Fix crash that happens when replacing sys.stderr with a
callable that can remove the object while an exception is being
printed. Patch by Pablo Galindo.
bpo-41561: Add workaround for Ubuntu’s custom OpenSSL security level
But occasionally I see entries in past tense:
bpo-26053: Fixed bug where the pdb interactive run command echoed
the args from the shell command line, even if those have been
overridden at the pdb prompt.
bpo-40630: Added tracemalloc.reset_peak() to set the peak size of
traced memory blocks to the current size, to measure the peak of
specific pieces of code.
I couldn't find any guidance in the Python Dev Guide after sixty seconds
of poking around.
Obviously this isn't a big deal. But it might be nice to try and nudge
everybody in the same direction. It'd be pleasant if the changelog read
in a more unified voice, and using the same tense and sentence structure
would help towards that goal.
If we arrived at a firm decision, maybe "blurb" et al could add a little
text suggesting the proper style.