Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin pmaupin at gmail.com
Mon Mar 1 20:18:20 CET 2010

> Certainly. The PEP format is a useful one. I've used it myself for some numpy
> design documents. But can you see why people might get confused about your
> intentions when you call it a draft PEP and post it to python-dev? If you stop
> calling it a PEP and stop talking about putting it in the standard library,
> people will stop being distracted by those issues.

As I mentioned, I didn't see the fine print in PEP 1 about PEP 2 being
the document for library modules.  As I mentioned, mea culpa.  It is
painfully obvious that some don't like the way I have gone about
describing the project.  They obviously view me announcing this as
premature, or presumptuous, or something, and they have some sort of
visceral reaction to that.

However, I do not believe that any people (other than me) were really
confused in the process.  I made my intentions clear, and some people
reacted badly to that because I didn't follow the process (for which I
apologize again).  But calling it a draft PEP is a distraction
(because of the visceral reaction), but is not really what I would
call confusing.  My intention actually is to try to build something
that is worthy of the standard library, and to eventually try to get
it accepted, because I perceive a hole there, with a lot of point
solutions being done to solve a common problem, and I believe the
pushback is coming from people who fully understood that intention
from my posting.

I will try to say "hey -- here's a hole in the library and a proposal
for how to fix it" more diplomatically and in the correct forum in the
future, but it would be disingenuous for me to disown my goal of
getting a better configparser into the standard library.


More information about the Python-list mailing list