On 13 January 2017 at 12:43, Stephen J. Turnbull <turnbull.stephen.fw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
Mark E. Haase writes:
I don't think an informational PEP would make threads like Python Review shorter and/or more productive. The OP clearly didn't do much research, so it seems unlikely he would read an informational PEP.
But just saying "do your research" (which is quite reasonable without the informational PEP) is much less friendly than including the URL to the informational PEP in the kind of "canned response" you suggest. That's what Steven is aiming at.
I'm not sure that a PEP is the best format, as the normal PEP process is not a good match for something that is likely to need to be updated as "good syntax" is discovered for ideas formerly considered un-Pythonic and other languages come up with neat new ideas that don't have obvious Pythonic syntax. Andrew Barnert's blog post (thanks, Chris!) http://stupidpythonideas.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-following-idioms-matters.h... is a good start, and Nick Coghlan's "Curious Efficiency" blog has related material, I think. Perhaps pointers to those would be good.
Expanding on https://docs.python.org/devguide/langchanges.html would likely be a more useful format than an informational PEP. As a starting point, https://docs.python.org/devguide/faq.html#suggesting-changes should likely be consolidated into that page, and the FAQ entry simplified into a link to a new subsection on that page. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia