On 4/4/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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".
Excellent! (Thanks to Terry Reedy for the idea.) > 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. Good idea. Maybe 3000 should then be the meta-meta PEP with the Process for deciding Python 3000 Processes. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
