Kind Regards, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer about <https://compileralchemy.github.io/> | blog <https://abdur-rahmaanj.github.io/> github <https://github.com/Abdur-RahmaanJ> Mauritius
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:01 AM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:26:45AM +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > > Greeting lists, > > > > I am thinking of proposing to name accepted PEPs as PAPs > > namely: Python Accepted Proposals. > > I immediately think of these: > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pap > > https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/pap-smear/about/pac-20394841 **laughs** nice point, it depends on your dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pap gives food that is soft and has little taste or as short for paparazzi Also let's say we found another better replacement, let's see the below point > How would this work in practice? After a PEP is accepted, are we > supposed to go back through all the references to it and change them all > to PAP? Do we expect people to search for "PAP 12345" and "PEP 12345" if > they are unsure whether it is accepted or not? For future PEPs. People have to remember that after PEP x you have PEPs and 'PAP's Personally, I don't think that encoding the acceptance status in the ID > is very useful. There's so much more about the PEP that doesn't get > encoded in the ID, like *what it is about*. For example, if somebody > mentioned PEP 450, or PAP 450, to me, I would have no clue what it was, > and I wrote it! (I had to look it up to see what the number was.) > That's why the references exist, so that you look the details up. But knowing at a glance the status of a PEP immediately changes the perception of the text at hand I would expect that, if you know the context of the discussion and the > nature of the PEP, anyone with a good knowledge of Python should be able > to make a good guess of whether it was accepted or not. I quote the first mail: > ... you need to be a PEP historian > For example, > Python doesn't have a "directive" statement, so PEP 244 "The directive > statement" is probably not accepted. But Python does have nested scopes, > so PEP 227 "Nested Scopes" is probably accepted. I quote the first mail: > I know that PEPs have different status as enumerated here <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/> There are no PEPs as ' is probably accepted.', the status is enumerated above > I don't think that changing the second to PAP 227 adds enough useful > information to outweigh the nuisance and inconvenience of having two > ways to refer to PEPs. > 2 ways for past PEPs and 1 way for future PEPs
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/F4HZI4MYX4HJ452K5R6GA2VMVSMIPJP6/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
