On 14 September 2013 12:44, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote: > >> Personally, if there's a bunch of push-back against just adding >> TransformDict directly, why don't we make it provisional? I thought that >> was what provisional was for (meaning: we're going to add it, PyPI is not >> really appropriate, there may be some API changes). > > Not according to PEP 411. It implies that only modules/packages can be > provisional, not individual functions, and states that "most packages" > are expected to be provisional. So either PEP 411 doesn't apply to > TransformDict at all, or it applies by default. The PEP doesn't say. > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0411/ > > > Everything below the line is about PEP 411, not TransformDict. If you > don't care about PEP 411, you can stop reading now. > > > ========================== > > > Personally, I think it's a poor PEP. It doesn't document opposition to > the idea, and if I recall the discussion at the time correctly, there > was plenty of opposition.
Oops, meant to reply to this part, too. PEP 411 is an Informational PEP, not a standards track PEP. It's there to describe the policy, not to make the case for *having* the policy. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
