On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 04:18:42AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > PEPs don't get updated as future requirements cause changes in the > language. They remain as they were: the proposal. Changing the name > because of a change in the PEP's metadata seems like a very backwards > way to do things; among other things, it would lead people to consider > "PAPs" to be somehow authorative while "PEPs" are not, which would > leave informational and process PEPs in an awkward situation of being > neither non-accepted nor accepted, and would also encourage people to > treat the "PAP" as superior to the documentation. Neither is, in my > opinion, an advantage. Additionally, changing the *name* of a document > means that every reference has to be changed, which is an absurd waste > of time.
This is very well said. And I'll add that much of this remains in close analogy to RFCs. > The only advantage you've offered is some relatively weak notion that > it ceases to be a proposal once it's accepted, and since "PAP" would > still have the word "Proposal" in it, you're not really even changing > that. The suggestion seems to target situations where a PEP#### is referred to, but is simultaneously - so well-understood that one doesn't need to look it up to see what it says, - and yet so unknown that it's not clear what its status is. This seems so rare that maintaining different names sounds far more troublesome. > Let's not waste everyone's time for zero benefit. Thanks. Indeed. -- David Lowry-Duda <da...@lowryduda.com> <davidlowryduda.com> _______________________________________________ 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/NQ5KOLMSOLIML3RYJXZXRSO3MIPHVKZY/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
