On 2019-11-28 20:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote: [snip]
I'm consistently and frequently frustrated by the community's use of PEP id numbers as jargon. I consider it to be a classic example of the use of jargon to exclude, rather than the sense of using it to streamline communication.
Apart from PEP 8, I don't know a single PEP id off by heart (not even the PEPs I have authored) and your footnote above reads as pure gobbledygook to me. There is not enough context to guess the meaning of 3107 or 484 (Guido intended 3107 to support 484 did he? how uninformative) so there is nothing to be done except to stop reading, switch to a browser, and google them both.
And there are so many PEPs, most of which are of interest only to a tiny subset of the Python community, or old and obscure, that (apart from PEP 8) most of us don't even get the chance to memorise them through repetition. If I casually mentioned 317 into a conversation, how many people would know it was about prohibiting implicit exception instantiation?
Well, there's PEP 0, which is the index. Oh, and PEP 404. :-) The only other one I can remember is PEP 393 (Flexible String Representation), and that's because of writing an extension.