I would honestly argue that if the language spec doesn't clearly explain the motivation behind something then that should be directly addressed rather than link back to the PEP. We already have an issue with people misinterpreting the PEPs as documentation, trying to keep them up-to-date, etc. and I think explicitly linking back for historical context isn't beneficial enough to warrant the overhead.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:30 AM Brandt Bucher <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed. To prevent the docs from going stale, the "Originally proposed in > :pep:`XXX`." wording should probably be used for *all* of the new links, > not just the ones that are currently out-of-date. > > Depending on the scope of these changes, we could also just consider > adding a new ".. pepadded:: XXX" directive for reuse and consistency. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2R4JJSJTCLVLWWQ4FKMMTVJ3UE3DVC2T/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/GSCSRLHAD5X2OMFNY3WDWQRMS4CJN6BW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
