The reference implementation in the patch adds a couple of extra things that aren't part of the PEP, but were discussed at Monday's sprint. Specifically:
a top level package called 'stringlib' is added to the standard library.
the dstring class implemented PEP 292 is available through stringlib.dstring
some handy dict subclasses that work with the dstring class are also provided.
If this stuff is approved for Python 2.4, I'll add test cases and documentation.
This is more generic remarks about the whole PEP process than anything specific about the above work.
Would such stuff be "approved" without going through the PEP first? Should not PEPs represent the full idea, the summary of discussions, and adequately represent the extent of what is being approved, or not?
I sometimes have the feeling that PEPs are used, or avoided, depending on the barometric pressure. :-) Maybe they are used to punch holes in the decision process. Once a hole exists, trucks may go through. Should not PEPs be updated and completed, in particular, when what they describe gets implemented differently, at least saving for the posterity the reasons of the differences? Should not this be mandatorily done _before_ inclusion of a feature into a release? If not that way, many PEPs are going to stay forever incomplete.
-- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard