This sounds fine to me. For type hint s we did a similar thing with PEPs 482, 483 and 484. You probably want to make everyone involved a co-author.
On Tue, May 22, 2018, 14:29 Jeroen Demeyer <j.deme...@ugent.be> wrote: > Hello, > > Both PEP 573 and PEP 575 deal with built-in functions. Additionally, > some people (Stefan Behnel, Robert Bradshaw, Jim Pivarski and me) are > currently brainstorming about a yet-to-be-written PEP to allow calling > the underlying C function of a built-in function using native types (for > example, a C long instead of a Python int). Think of it as analogous to > the buffer protocol: the buffer protocol exposes C *data* while this > would expose C *callables*. > > Since all these PEPs would overlap somewhat, I'm starting to wonder > about the best way to organize this. Ideally, I would like some kind of > "meta-PEP" where we discuss the future of built-in functions in general > terms without too much details. This would be followed by several PEPs > each going in detail about one specific aspect. > > Is there a precedent for this? What do the seasoned Python developers > think? > > > Jeroen. > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/