Guido van Rossum wrote: > 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.
I've now moved PEP 3000 to PEP 3100. However, I don't consider myself metapythonical enough to write the meta-meta-PEP 3000 ;) 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
