PEP 0 maintenance - deferring some currently open PEPs
I'd like to mark a few PEPs that are not currently being actively considered for 3.4 as Deferred: S 286 Enhanced Argument Tuples von Löwis S 337 Logging Usage in the Standard Library Dubner S 368 Standard image protocol and class Mastrodomenico I 396 Module Version Numbers Warsaw S 400 Deprecate codecs.StreamReader and codecs.StreamWriter Stinner S 419 Protecting cleanup statements from interruptions Colomiets I 423 Naming conventions and recipes related to packaging Bryon I 444 Python Web3 Interface McDonough, Ronacher S 3124 Overloading, Generic Functions, Interfaces, and ... Eby S 3142 Add a "while" clause to generator expressions Britton S 3143 Standard daemon process library Finney S 3145 Asynchronous I/O For subprocess.Popen Pruitt, McCreary, Carlson S 3152 Cofunctions Ewing Obviously, they can be reactivated at any time, but I think it would be beneficial to have the "Open" list more accurately reflect proposals that are currently being championed. I'd also like to mark this one as rejected by Guido at PyCon US 2013 in favour of an updated PEP 436: S 437 A DSL for specifying signatures, annotations and ... Krah Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
Yeah, I have a couple of PEPs like that - they pretty much live in Deferred and I update them when inspiration strikes :) PEP-a-holic'ly, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:14:21 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
S 368 Standard image protocol and class Mastrodomenico
I haven't read through it in detail yet, but this PEP looks interesting in the context of the further enhancements planned for the email module (ie: a MIME image object returned by the email parser is a candidate to provide the PEP 368 interface). Does anyone know if there is any associated code? --David
On 5/10/2013 3:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I had the impression that this had more or less been rejected. I suppose I could try to dig up the discussion.
You might also ask the authors if they are still really in favor of them or have any hope for them, considering whatever discussion occurred, or whether they have abandoned them (which would mean withdrawn).
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
I didn't know there was a PEP for that. I hereby reject it. No point wasting more time on it.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
That's real work though, compared to just marking them as Deferred :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 05/10/2013 12:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I'd like to mark a few PEPs that are not currently being actively considered for 3.4 as Deferred:
I swear I posted a list like this a couple years ago. Now I can't find it. Anyway it was completely ignored then, probably because I'm not Nick Coghlan. //arry/
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
Yeah, I have a couple of PEPs like that - they pretty much live in Deferred and I update them when inspiration strikes :) PEP-a-holic'ly, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:14:21 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
S 368 Standard image protocol and class Mastrodomenico
I haven't read through it in detail yet, but this PEP looks interesting in the context of the further enhancements planned for the email module (ie: a MIME image object returned by the email parser is a candidate to provide the PEP 368 interface). Does anyone know if there is any associated code? --David
On 5/10/2013 3:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I had the impression that this had more or less been rejected. I suppose I could try to dig up the discussion.
You might also ask the authors if they are still really in favor of them or have any hope for them, considering whatever discussion occurred, or whether they have abandoned them (which would mean withdrawn).
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
I didn't know there was a PEP for that. I hereby reject it. No point wasting more time on it.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
That's real work though, compared to just marking them as Deferred :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 05/10/2013 12:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I'd like to mark a few PEPs that are not currently being actively considered for 3.4 as Deferred:
I swear I posted a list like this a couple years ago. Now I can't find it. Anyway it was completely ignored then, probably because I'm not Nick Coghlan. //arry/
participants (7)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Barry Warsaw -
Guido van Rossum -
Larry Hastings -
Nick Coghlan -
R. David Murray -
Terry Jan Reedy