I would honestly argue that if the language spec doesn't clearly explain the motivation behind something then that should be directly addressed rather than link back to the PEP. We already have an issue with people misinterpreting the PEPs as documentation, trying to keep them up-to-date, etc. and I think explicitly linking back for historical context isn't beneficial enough to warrant the overhead.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:30 AM Brandt Bucher <brandtbuc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. To prevent the docs from going stale, the "Originally proposed in > :pep:`XXX`." wording should probably be used for *all* of the new links, > not just the ones that are currently out-of-date. > > Depending on the scope of these changes, we could also just consider > adding a new ".. pepadded:: XXX" directive for reuse and consistency. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/2R4JJSJTCLVLWWQ4FKMMTVJ3UE3DVC2T/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GSCSRLHAD5X2OMFNY3WDWQRMS4CJN6BW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
