pre-PEP for optional 'pass'

[brueckd at tbye.com]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Duncan Booth wrote:

> > We're veering slightly from the original reason for this point, which
> > was how to write stub functions/methods which will be implemented
> > later.  The above certainly doesn't indicate any intent to actually
> > implement the methods (in fact, on the contrary, it suggests they
> > could be removed).
>
> I think you trimmed a bit too much when you followed up. I would have
> described what the functions were intended to do if I had known that,
> but as I said I have no idea what these particular functions do, so all
> I could document was the lack of implementation. Since I was being
> chastised for failing to produce meaningful docstrings for someone
> else's imaginary functions I made them as meaningful as I could in the
> circumstances.

No, you were being chastised for promoting a horrible standard - that
*all* classes and *all* methods should have a docstring. It's just plain
wrong.