On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:13 AM Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:00 PM Chris Angelico email@example.com wrote:
Can you explain to us what we'd gain by having a complete name change once a PEP becomes accepted?
A proposal means a suggestion. People propose enhancement suggestions. They were suggestions to the Python committee, but now they have been accepted, carried forward and executed. They now have become documents on which the language bases itself. All law projects remain law projects. But we call law projects which has been accepted as law.
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.
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.
Let's not waste everyone's time for zero benefit. Thanks.
ChrisA PEP editor who really doesn't feel like trying to support two names for the same things