On 22/09/20 6:39 am, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
I referred PEP8, a meta-pep as PAP8 in the first mail itself If such PEPs are included under PAPs, the 'authorative' point holds
Informational PEPs such as PEP 8 are relatively rare. I don't think the whole PEP process should be warped just because of them. Arguably they shouldn't even be called PEPs in the first place.