On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 04:18:42AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
PEPs don't get updated as future requirements cause changes in the language. They remain as they were: the proposal. Changing the name because of a change in the PEP's metadata seems like a very backwards way to do things; among other things, it would lead people to consider "PAPs" to be somehow authorative while "PEPs" are not, which would leave informational and process PEPs in an awkward situation of being neither non-accepted nor accepted, and would also encourage people to treat the "PAP" as superior to the documentation. Neither is, in my opinion, an advantage. Additionally, changing the *name* of a document means that every reference has to be changed, which is an absurd waste of time.
This is very well said. And I'll add that much of this remains in close analogy to RFCs.
The only advantage you've offered is some relatively weak notion that it ceases to be a proposal once it's accepted, and since "PAP" would still have the word "Proposal" in it, you're not really even changing that.
The suggestion seems to target situations where a PEP#### is referred to, but is simultaneously - so well-understood that one doesn't need to look it up to see what it says, - and yet so unknown that it's not clear what its status is.
This seems so rare that maintaining different names sounds far more troublesome.
Let's not waste everyone's time for zero benefit. Thanks.