First draft is available as a draft PR on
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1579
This draft contains just the motivation, not the implementation
decisions. I'll add that in the upcoming nights, but it's now open for
comments.
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 22:50, Stefano Borini wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Au
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 19:33, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Agreed with Victor. Please create a new PEP.
on it.
--
Kind regards,
Stefano Borini
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.o
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 11:09 PM Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Okay, thanks everyone who answered.
>
> In hindsight you are all correct, writing a new PEP is the best solution
> and I was being over-optimistic (and a little lazy) to think otherwise.
>
> I think that, technically, I still have core dev
Okay, thanks everyone who answered.
In hindsight you are all correct, writing a new PEP is the best solution
and I was being over-optimistic (and a little lazy) to think otherwise.
I think that, technically, I still have core dev permissions, even
though I haven't used them for quite some time.
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:20:08 +0200
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> IMO a new PEP would avoid confusion:
>
> * The new PEP should list differences with the previously rejected PEP
> * The old PEP remains available unchanged to help to understand why it
> has been rejected
>
> It's common to have
Hi,
IMO a new PEP would avoid confusion:
* The new PEP should list differences with the previously rejected PEP
* The old PEP remains available unchanged to help to understand why it
has been rejected
It's common to have multiple PEP for the same feature. Once a PEP is
accepted, other PEP are re
Hi,
I'm Joseph, the co-author of PEP 472. You can remove the second complication ;)
You can even remove my name if it simplifies things, Stefano did all of the
work anyway.
I'm also following the discussion on python-ideas and I like the way it seem to
go with "standard" kwargs. It didn't occur
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 7:13 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
> Leaving out the complication of needing a new sponsor, I would think the
> best course of action would be to create a new PEP. I think keeping the
> original rejected PEP is a net positive, and especially so if one of the
> original authors i
Leaving out the complication of needing a new sponsor, I would think the
best course of action would be to create a new PEP. I think keeping the
original rejected PEP is a net positive, and especially so if one of the
original authors isn't available. At the very least, you'd want to
remove the
