Hm. I think at that scale giving every PEP a unique name and remembering those names is just as hard. And the issue with different versions or variants of the same idea is real. I think it's not worth the effort.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com>wrote: > 2013/10/12 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org>: > > What's the use case? I just use Google search if I don't recall the PEP > > number. > > The final goal would be to identify PEPs using a textual identifier > instead of a number identifier. > > We now have 206 PEPs (341 if you count also deferred and rejected > PEPs). It's not easy to remember all these PEP numbers. Google should > not needed to find a PEP, it's identifier should be enough to write > manually the URL. The problem is to remember the numerical identifier. > > It's easy to mix up PEP numbers. For example, Martin von Loewis wrote > two major PEP related to Unicode: 383 and 393. These numbers are > close, only one digit is different. It's worse when you discuss recent > PEPs: PEP 445 or PEP 454? Oops, no it was the PEP 455. > > Victor > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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
