On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Guido van Rossum <email@example.com>
Odd. Were those people experienced in writing / reviewing PEPs?
There were a few. Some of them were. Unfortunately the prevalent reason was politics: "make it clear that you're not just trying to get twisted in the stdlib". Given that that's been suggested both on and off-list, both now and then, I guess that wasn't entirely unreasonable (but not providing things to play with was -- the experience was just so bad I pretty much never got there).
>> > Do you feel that there should be less talk about rationale?Shall I just reject PEP 3153 so it doesn't distract people? Of course
>> No, but I feel that there should be some actual specification. I am
>> also looking forward to an actual meaty bit of example code -- ISTR
>> you mentioned you had something, but that it was incomplete, and I
>> can't find the link.
> Just examples of how it would work, nothing hooked up to real code. My
> memory of it is more of a drowning-in-politics-and-bikeshedding kind of
> thing, unfortunately :) Either way, I'm okay with letting bygones be bygones
> and focus on how we can get this show on the road.
we can still refer to it when people ask for a rationale for the
separation between transports and protocols, but it doesn't seem the
PEP itself is going to be finished (correct me if I'm wrong), and as
it stands it is not useful as a software specification.
I'm not sure that's necessary; these threads show a lot of willpower to get it done (even though that's not enough), and it's pretty easy to edit. You're certainly right that right now it's not a useful software spec; but neither would an empty new PEP be ;)