[Python-3000] feature proposal process

[Aahz]

[some snippage]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2006, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I guess the real question is how stringent we should be with the PEP
> process.  For instance, do we really need a PEP for changing
> dict.keys() to return an iterator and to drop dict.iterkeys()?  This
> has been planned for so long, I say it is not needed.  PEP 3000 can be
> augmented to make sure all obvious changes have a basic explanation.
> 
> The over-arching question I am posing is how granular we should be
> with the PEPs.  Should some meta-PEPs in terms of design be hashed out
> first so we have general guidelines to follow.  I say we should get at
> least some rough ideas down.

My take is that we should include all changes in some PEP.  I think it
makes good sense to group small changes into a single related PEP.  The
main reason for this is to provide a formalized mechanism to record
changes in these small changes ;-) as we work through the Py3K process.
Thus, we will need to be careful to continuously record the current
state in the PEPs.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"19. A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming,
is not worth knowing."  --Alan Perlis