First off, kudos to PJE for his work on this PEP. He really had the key insight for this new approach, and did a great job of explaining his vision in a clear way so that I think everybody over on import-sig "got it".
On Jul 20, 2011, at 08:57 AM, P.J. Eby wrote: >At 06:46 PM 7/20/2011 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: >> > So, without further ado, here it is: >> >>I pushed this version up to the PEPs repo, so it now has a number >>(402) and can be read in prettier HTML format: >>http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0402/ > >Technically, shouldn't this be a 3XXX series PEP? Or are we not doing those >any more now that all PEPs would be 3XXX? Great question. I don't know if we want/need to make the distinction any more. It does feel a little odd putting Python 3 PEPs (the only kind of new Standards Track PEPs) in the 0XXX numbers, but now that we're all moving to Python 3 <wink>, it seems like segregating new PEPs to the 3XXX range is a bit contrived. I think filling up 0XXX is probably fine. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
