Guido van Rossum wrote: > I was going to comment about this one "check it in, we'll add to it > later", but then I realized it's not 100% clear whether this is a > feature PEP or a meta-PEP? It focuses on features so by that yardstick > it's a feature PEP. But in its list-of-miscellany nature it > approximates a meta-PEP. Hmm, perhaps it ought to be PEP 3999 (which > can be seen as minus one in the numbering scheme for Python-3000 PEPs > :-)? > > In any case let's not let it longer for long. Realistically, I think > it can be a meta-PEP.
Since it's a meta-PEP, but closely related to features, I've checked it in with number 3099, that is, "first feature-PEP minus one". Related question: as the current PEP 3000 contains mainly feature proposals, shouldn't it be renamed to 3100? PEP 3000 could then be a quasi-summary of 3xxx PEPs and random important facts that don't fit elsewhere. Georg _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
