Facundo Batista wrote:
> 2008/3/5, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> (Bringing this from python-ideas, Guido is talking about PEP 3135)
>
>> Ehhh! The PEP's "reference implementation" is useless and probably
>> doesn't even work. The actual implementation is completely different.
>> If you want to help, a rewrite of the PEP to match reality would be
>> most welcome!
>
> Guido, I know that in this fight-for-reality some of the PEPs for Py3
> are not correct.
>
> Which is the plan to handle this? Will the original authors fix them?
> And if not, will these PEP be marked as "Caution: non compliant with
> reality" or something?
>
> PEPs are a great tool, one of the Python assets, and it's a pity that
> we may not trust them...
Some PEPs (252/253 come to mind) already carry such warnings. The
wording in those two PEPs suggests that this warning was added by the
PEP editors after the fact:
[Editor's note: the ideas described in this PEP have been incorporated
into Python. The PEP no longer accurately describes the implementation.]
In other cases we have gone back and fixed the PEP to match the
implementation (e.g. PEP 343 was updated to reflect changes that
happened prior to 2.5 release).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
