Meta: PEP discussion (was Re: PEP 255: Simple Generators)

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "SM" == Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> writes:

    SM> I agree with Jeremy.  I wasn't keenly interested in python
    SM> iterators from the get-go (you can't follow everything), so I
    SM> missed all the discussion until PEP 255 was released.  Then
    SM> within a day or two it winds up in the head branch of CVS.
    SM> That's not to say it doesn't deserve to be there, but it seems
    SM> thtat the time from PEP to CVS was rather short.

I thought so too.  It definitely wasn't on my radar until it was
checked in.

In general I think that it's fine to continue to discuss PEPs on
alternative forums until they are pretty well fleshed out.  But once
there's a serious move to include the code into CVS in a
non-experimental way (as I gather is the case with the generators
feature), I really think it the discussions have to be moved to
python-dev at the very least.

Unless there's heated objections, I'll update the PEP 1 procedures to
describe this workflow.

-Barry