[Python-3000] feature proposal process

[Brett Cannon]

On 3/21/06, Samuele Pedroni <pedronis at strakt.com> wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > It seems to me that we should follow the normal process we have been
> > following on python-dev; library changes can just be done by the
> > discretion of committers and language changes require a PEP.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > But what about situations like changing dict.keys() to an attribute?
> > Does that require a full PEP?  Since mutation is not expected during
> > iteration on the returned iterator, I say it should be an attribute.
>
>
> uh? it produces a fresh iterator each time tough. I cannot recall
> anything like this that follow your philophy at the moment.

I am not talking about getting back the same iterator.  I am talking
about if you request an iterator and mutate the dict before exhausting
the iterator.  That makes the dict "read-only" in a way temporarily.

>
> I think that mixing your ideas with process discussion is a mistake.
> (or was it an weird example)
>

Weird example.  Just trying to illustrate the various granularity that
we can take in terms of proposing changes.

-Brett