Thanks for all the comments that have been given on the data-type (data-format) PEP. I'd like opinions on an idea for revising the PEP I have. What if we look at this from the angle of trying to communicate data-formats between different libraries (not change the way anybody internally deals with data-formats). For example, ctypes has one way to internally deal with data-formats (using type objects). NumPy/Numeric has a way to internally deal with data-formats (using PyArray_Descr * structure -- in Numeric it's just a C-structure but in NumPy it's fleshed out further and also a Python object called the data-type). Numarray has a way to internally deal with data-formats (using type objects). The array module has a way to internally deal with data-formats (using a PyArray_Descr * structure -- and character codes to select one). The struct module deals with data-formats using character codes. The PIL deals with data-formats using image modes. PyVTK deals with data-formats using it's own internal objects. MPI deals with data-formats using it's own MPI_DataType structures. This list goes on and on. What I claim is needed in Python (to make it better glue) is to have a standard way to communicate data-format information between these extensions. Then, you don't have to build in support for all the different ways data-formats are represented by different libraries. The library only has to be able to translate their representation to the standard way that Python uses to represent data-format. How is this goal going to be achieved? That is the real purpose of the data-type object I previously proposed. Nick showed that there are two (non-orthogonal) ways to think about this goal. 1) We could define a special string-syntax (or list syntax) that covers every special case. The array interface specification goes this direction and it requires no new Python types. This could also be seen as an extension of the "struct" module to allow for nested structures, etc. 2) We could define a Python object that specifically carries data-format information. There is also a third way (or really 2b) that has been mentioned: take one of the extensions and use what it does to communicate data-format between objects and require all other extensions to conform to that standard. The problem with 2b is that what works inside an extension module may not be the best option when it comes to communicating across multiple extension modules. Certainly none of the extension modules have argued that case effectively. Does that explain the goal of what I'm trying to do better?