On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:26:45AM +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
I am thinking of proposing to name accepted PEPs as PAPs namely: Python Accepted Proposals.
I immediately think of these:
I don't think I'd ever be able to shake those connotations.
How would this work in practice? After a PEP is accepted, are we supposed to go back through all the references to it and change them all to PAP? Do we expect people to search for "PAP 12345" and "PEP 12345" if they are unsure whether it is accepted or not?
Personally, I don't think that encoding the acceptance status in the ID is very useful. There's so much more about the PEP that doesn't get encoded in the ID, like *what it is about*. For example, if somebody mentioned PEP 450, or PAP 450, to me, I would have no clue what it was, and I wrote it! (I had to look it up to see what the number was.)
I would expect that, if you know the context of the discussion and the nature of the PEP, anyone with a good knowledge of Python should be able to make a good guess of whether it was accepted or not. For example, Python doesn't have a "directive" statement, so PEP 244 "The directive statement" is probably not accepted. But Python does have nested scopes, so PEP 227 "Nested Scopes" is probably accepted.
I don't think that changing the second to PAP 227 adds enough useful information to outweigh the nuisance and inconvenience of having two ways to refer to PEPs.