On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:08 PM Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote:
> 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. > Hm, I think that's a little strong. There are plenty of PEP references in the existing docs. (For example, the importlib docs have a half page of PEP references under "See also". :-) I also think that the language spec and library reference aren't always the best place to explain the *motivation* -- they are for users who want to know what to do. So a link to a PEP seems to make more sense than duplicating the information (unless the library/language docs need to contradict a PEP, of course). -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ 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/3XA6YB65SVPM2EAPHE36CWTY5GR73JFF/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
