[Python-Dev] PEP 376

[Tarek Ziadé]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull<stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> That's a judgment you must make.  However, Paul's opinion seems to be
> that it is internal, and not needed by third-parties who are working
> "on the top" of these classes.  If upon consideration you agree, you
> should take those "details" out of the PEP proper.  If you disagree,
> you should promote them to the "official"/public API.
>
> The point of a PEP is not to construct a duck; it is to explain what
> "quack" means.

Yes, while the APIs I have written in the prototype+PEP helped us
claryfing what we wanted,
I agree they would be better in a second document.

They are two target audience, the users of distutils and the builders
of package managers,
so removing this details from the PEP will also make it easier to read
for the first crowd.

>
> Another general principle: even in the draft PEP, say "is", not "will
> be".

Ok I'll fix that. That's a French stuff : in french, "will be" isn't
speculative at all.

Thx