Status of PEP's?

[James_Althoff at i2.com]

[David Eppstein]
> I was starting to think it might be time to write a
> PEP, but then Tim's comment about how he dislikes iterating
> over 3 discouraged me.

[Bjorn Pettersen]
> I would still encourage you to write a PEP, especially if you think
> this should be implemented instead of PEP 276.

I agree as I just remembered another issue that came up concerning the
"for-relational" suggestion.  Namely, that the "for-relational" syntax
doesn't handle step values for intervals.  So even though there would be
new syntax, we would still need to use range/xrange in cases requiring a
step value not equal to 1 or -1.

Jim