On 11/2/2012 10:04 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Terry Reedy firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The way to resolve a proposal
like that is to put it forward as a PEP, and explain the rationale for treating IDLE differently.
A PEP seems like overkill to me. The matter is a rule clarification, not an enhancement proposal. The rationale is simple.
If you don't want to run the risk of needing to rehash this discussion every time an IDLE feature addition is made in maintenance branches, write the rules down in a PEP.
[snip reasons] OK, I am convinced an info PEP would be a good idea.