[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] CVS: python/nondist/peps pep-0204.txt,1.3,1.4

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:

    TW> Damn, I'm glad I didn't rewrite it on my laptop
    TW> yesterday. This looks much better, Barry, thanx ! Want to
    TW> co-author it ? :)

Naw, that's what an editor is for (actually, I thought an editor was
for completely covering your desktop like lox on a bagel).
    
    TW> (I really need to get myself some proper (X)Emacs education so
    TW> I can do cool things like two-spaces-after-finished-sentences
    TW> too)

Heh, that's just finger training, but I do it only because it works
well with XEmacs's paragraph filling.

    TW> Well, that would require me to force the open issues, because
    TW> they haven't been decided. They have hardly been discussed ;)
    TW> I'm not sure how to properly close them, however. For
    TW> instance: I would say "not now" to ranges of something other
    TW> than PyInt objects, and the same to the idea of
    TW> generators. But the issues remain open for debate in future
    TW> versions. Should there be a 'closed issues' section, or should
    TW> I just not mention them and have people start a new PEP and
    TW> gather the ideas anew when the time comes ?

    TW> (And a Decisions (either a consensus one or a BDFL one) would
    TW> be nice on whether the two new PyList_ functions should be
    TW> part of the API or not. The rest of the issues I can handle.)

The thing to do is to request BDFL pronouncement on those issues for
2.0, and write them up in a "BDFL Pronouncements" section at the end
of the PEP.  See PEP 201 for an example.  You should probably email
Guido directly and ask him to rule.  If he doesn't, then they'll get
vetoed by default once 2.0beta1 is out.

IMO, if some extension of range literals is proposed for a future
release of Python, then we'll issue a new PEP for those.

-Barry