[Python-Dev] proposed amendments to PEP 1
Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:03:43 -0400
> [David Goodger]
> The desire is not to cull the weak, but to promote the
> strong. The desire is to change already-implemented and
> implicitly-accepted PEPs to from "Status: Draft" to "Status: Accepted"
> or "Status: Final".
That's a good goal.
> Good points; I agree completely. I have no problem leaving doomed (or
> currently perceived as doomed) PEPs to remain in limbo until the
> author(s) choose to seal their fate.
Great. I have one of those ;)
> >> For a PEP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It
> >> must be a clear description of the proposed enhancement. The
> >> enhancement must represent a net improvement. The implementation,
> >> if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the
> >> interpreter unduly. Finally, a proposed enhancement must be
> >> "pythonic" in order to be accepted by the BDFL. (However,
> >> "pythonic" is an imprecise term; it may be defined as whatever is
> >> acceptable to the BDFL. This logic is intentionally circular.)
> Clarification: this paragraph addresses a completely separate issue than
> the proposed addition above. I have sensed some confusion as to what
> constitutes an acceptable PEP, and a hand-waving blurb giving a vague
> definition seems useful.
That's reasonable. I'm not sure it would have filtered out anything
except an April Fools pep.
> What's your opinion now, post-clarifications? Please treat the two
> parts separately.
BTW, thanks for your work as PEP editor.
Keep it up,