Status of PEP's?

[Greg Ewing]

David Eppstein wrote:
> 
> In article <mailman.1014990243.30815.python-list at python.org>,
>  "Bjorn Pettersen" <BPettersen at NAREX.com> wrote:
> 
> > Of course, if anyone actually cared about this syntax, we would have a
> > PEP with a pro/con section, so we wouldn't have to reiterate the same
> > arguments over and over again <wink>
> 
> 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 is talking about "for x < i < y", though, which
is a different proposal from the one about iterating
over 3. I think they deserve to be judged separately.

I'm too busy to write a PEP on this myself right
now, as I'm working on another Python-related project.
I may do it if nobody else has done it by the time I get
through that.

-- 
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, University of Canterbury,	  
Christchurch, New Zealand
To get my email address, please visit my web page:	  
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg