First off, kudos to PJE for his work on this PEP. He really had the key insight for this new approach, and did a great job of explaining his vision in a clear way so that I think everybody over on import-sig "got it". On Jul 20, 2011, at 08:57 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 06:46 PM 7/20/2011 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
So, without further ado, here it is:
I pushed this version up to the PEPs repo, so it now has a number (402) and can be read in prettier HTML format: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0402/
Technically, shouldn't this be a 3XXX series PEP? Or are we not doing those any more now that all PEPs would be 3XXX?
Great question. I don't know if we want/need to make the distinction any more. It does feel a little odd putting Python 3 PEPs (the only kind of new Standards Track PEPs) in the 0XXX numbers, but now that we're all moving to Python 3 <wink>, it seems like segregating new PEPs to the 3XXX range is a bit contrived. I think filling up 0XXX is probably fine. -Barry