On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Barry Warsaw email@example.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 2012, at 09:22 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
Perhaps I should clarify "Other Possible Values" in the PEP? I'd intended it as a list of meaningful names, most of which others had suggested, that could be considered at some later point. That's part of why I didn't develop the descriptions there too much. Rather, I wanted to focus on the two primary names for now.
Should those potential names be considered more seriously right now? I was hoping to keep it light to start out, just the things we'd use immediately.
I think you could keep it light (but +1 for adding cache_tag now).
cache_tag it is.
I'd suggest making it clear that neither the keys, values, nor semantics are actually being proposed in this PEP. The PEP could just include some examples for future additions (and thus de-emphasize that section of the PEP).
It might be helpful to describe a mechanism by which future values would be added to sys.implementation. E.g. is a new PEP required for each? (I don't have an opinion on that right now. :)
This is a good direction. I'll update the PEP. Thanks!