Status of PEP's?

[Raymond Hettinger]

"Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote in message
news:m3k7syiqye.fsf at mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de...
> Gonçalo Rodrigues <op73418 at mail.telepac.pt> writes:
>
> > Anyone knows how is the "acceptance status" of the following PEP's, that
> > is, is there any idea if they will be accepted for the next Python
> > realease:
> >
> > PEP 276: Iterator for ints.
> > (I really love this one - as simple and "obvious" as it gets)
> >
> > PEP 279: Enhanced generators
>
> You'll need to ask the authors. If they feel it is ready, they need to
> ask for BDFL pronouncement.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>

PEP 279 is still being tweaked. I expect to put in a version 1.5
update this weekend and go through another round of comments.
Hopefully, it will trigger some discussion on the iterators maillist.

It's pre-mature to ask for pronouncement because only one
of the top Python people has given any commentary.  I've gotten
many comments from other folks and have remedied any
defects they've pointed out.  At some point, however, I need
some input from 'bots, dictators, and gurus.

I have not gotten feedback from anyone who has tried the
genpep.py simulator.  It is a pure Python module that allows you
to directly experiment with each of the proposals:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/download.php?group_id=5470&atid=305470&file_i
d=17348&aid=513752

A test suite with demos and examples is at:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/download.php?group_id=5470&atid=305470&file_i
d=17412&aid=513756


Raymond Hettinger