[Python-Dev] proposed amendments to PEP 1

Raymond Hettinger python@rcn.com
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,

Raymond Hettinger