[Python-Dev] PEP 236: an alternative to the __future__ syntax

[Tim Peters]

[Martin v. Loewis]
> ...
> If you think this should be written down in a PEP,

Yes.

> I'd request that the specification above is added into PEP 236.

No -- PEP 236 is not a general directive PEP, no matter how much that what
you *want* is a general directive PEP.  I'll add a Q/A pair to 236 about why
it's not a general directive PEP, but that's it.  PEP 236 stands on its own
for what it's designed for; your PEP should stand on its own for what *it's*
designed for (which isn't nested_scopes et alia, it's character encodings).

(BTW, there is no patch attached to patch 404997 -- see other recent msgs
 about people having problems uploading files to SF; maybe you could
 just put a patch URL in a comment now?]