And PEP numbers have a fourth purpose when used as jargon (this
applies to any numbered formal standard such as RFCs or ISO): they are
self-citing.  In that sense, they are *inclusive*.  They're an
invitation to learn more than you ever wanted to know about the things
the community cares about.

using the PEP  

 > Apart from PEP 8, I don't know a single PEP id off by heart
 > (not even the PEPs I have authored)

I know more that that (off the top of my head, 0, 1, 7, 8, 263, 383,
393, 484, and 3000, none of which I authored although I was extremely
noisy about 263), which is less than 2% I guess. 

I think some people simply remember numbers more than others -- I, for one, an NOT a number rememberer -- PEP8 is the only one I know off hand, including the one I wrote.

which isn't to say the numbers aren't useful, just that it would be SO much more communicative to use the number (for easy look up) AND a brief description or title.

Frankly, I get confused when there are discussion on this list (or python-dev, or) about currently PEPs in the midst of active discussion! Is is THAT hard to add a little text?

And it's not just PEPs -- at work, I have to read a LOT of emails about the development of our Annual Operating plan, and most folks talk about "goal 4" or "goal 2", and I have a hard time keeping them straight -- and there are only 6 goals!


Christopher Barker, PhD

Python Language Consulting
  - Teaching
  - Scientific Software Development
  - Desktop GUI and Web Development
  - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython