On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 11:24:27 +0900 INADA Naoki firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Hi, Nick and all core devs who are interested in this PEP.
I'm reviewing PEP 538 and I want to accept it in this month. It will reduces much UnicodeError pains which server-side OPs facing. Thank you Nick for working on this PEP.
If you have something worrying about this PEP, please post a comment soon. If you don't have enough time to read entire this PEP, feel free to ask a question about you're worrying.
From my POV, it is problematic that the behaviour outlined in PEP 538 (see Abstract section) varies depending on the adoption of another PEP (PEP 540).
If we want to adopt PEP 538 before pronouncing on PEP 540, then PEP 538 should remove all points conditional on PEP 540 adoption, and PEP 540 should later be changed to adopt those removed points as PEP 540-specific changes.
This is kind of an aside, but regardless of the dependency relationship between PEP 538 and 540, given that they kind of go hand-in-hand would it make sense to rename them--e.g. have PEP 539 and PEP 540 trade places, since PEP 539 has nothing to do with this and is awkwardly nestled between them. Or would that only confuse matters at this point?