On 11/2/2012 10:04 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
The way to resolve a proposal
like that is to put it forward as a PEP, and explain the rationale for
treating IDLE differently.
A PEP seems like overkill to me. The matter is a rule clarification, not an
enhancement proposal. The rationale is simple.
If you don't want to run the risk of needing to rehash this discussion
every time an IDLE feature addition is made in maintenance branches,
write the rules down in a PEP.
[snip reasons]
OK, I am convinced an info PEP would be a good idea.
--
Terry
_______________________________________________
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
