[Python-Dev] proposed amendments to PEP 1
Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:57:50 -0400
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> From these proposals and the annoucement earlier this week,
> I sense a desire to have fewer peps and to more rapidly get
> them out of the draft status.
There's some truth to that. OTOH, until the BDFL declares something to
be an ex-PEP, I don't think BDFL rejection of a PEP means that it is
forever dead -- it just requires substantial revision to resurrect it.
The point of PEPs is to prevent rehashing of old subjects in the same
way, not to prevent new ideas from restarting discussions.
Aahz (firstname.lastname@example.org) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"In many ways, it's a dull language, borrowing solid old concepts from
many other languages & styles: boring syntax, unsurprising semantics,
few automatic coercions, etc etc. But that's one of the things I like
about it." --Tim Peters on Python, 16 Sep 93