On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 10 November 2017 at 17:43, Guido van Rossum email@example.com wrote:
There seem to be some action items from this thread that I haven't seen reflected in the PEP source code yet. [...snip...] Then the next step I propose is a PR with a full implementation. After that I'll likely approve the PEP (or we'll have minor feedback based on trying the implementation).
Yes, sorry, I wanted to make updates to the PEP and reference implementation, but last two weeks were very busy. Hopefully, I will work on it this weekend.
Thanks, I am happy now with the PEP, except for one detail: maybe `__mro_entry__` should always return a tuple and then maybe renamed to `__mro_entries__`. (See debate at https://github.com/python/peps/pull/460#issuecomment-343969528 .)
Other than that I think we just need to satisfy a process nit: let's post the final PEP (after that issue is resolved) to python-dev.