Kind Regards,

Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:01 AM Steven D'Aprano <> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:26:45AM +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> Greeting lists,
> I am thinking of proposing to name accepted PEPs as PAPs
> namely: Python Accepted Proposals.

I immediately think of these:
**laughs** nice point, it depends on your dictionary:

food that is soft and has little taste or as short for paparazzi

Also let's say we found another better replacement, let's see the below point

How would this work in practice? After a PEP is accepted, are we
supposed to go back through all the references to it and change them all
to PAP? Do we expect people to search for "PAP 12345" and "PEP 12345" if
they are unsure whether it is accepted or not?

For future PEPs. People have to remember that after PEP x you have PEPs and 'PAP's

Personally, I don't think that encoding the acceptance status in the ID
is very useful. There's so much more about the PEP that doesn't get
encoded in the ID, like *what it is about*. For example, if somebody
mentioned PEP 450, or PAP 450, to me, I would have no clue what it was,
and I wrote it! (I had to look it up to see what the number was.)

That's why the references exist, so that you look the details up. But knowing
at a glance the status of a PEP immediately changes the perception of the 
text at hand 

I would expect that, if you know the context of the discussion and the
nature of the PEP, anyone with a good knowledge of Python should be able
to make a good guess of whether it was accepted or not.

I quote the first mail:

> ... you need to be a PEP historian
For example,
Python doesn't have a "directive" statement, so PEP 244 "The directive
statement" is probably not accepted. But Python does have nested scopes,
so PEP 227 "Nested Scopes" is probably accepted.

I quote the first mail:

> I know that PEPs have different status as enumerated here 

There are no PEPs as ' is probably accepted.', the status is enumerated above
I don't think that changing the second to PAP 227 adds enough useful
information to outweigh the nuisance and inconvenience of having two
ways to refer to PEPs.

2 ways for past PEPs and 1 way for future PEPs