2013/10/12 Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au>: > Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> writes: > >> For draft PEP, the identifier may change. > > For an idea implemented in several PEPs, the obvious identifier may be > taken first, but the preferred PEP for that identifier may later change. > > For example, PEP 354 would have the obvious keyword “enum” when it was > being discussed. Then it was rejected. > > Later, PEP 435 was introduced, and accepted. It is now even *more* > deserving of the keyword “enum” than the earlier PEP. > > What do you propose in cases like this? Should the keyword always refer > to the same PEP it did in the past, even when that PEP is no longer as > relevant given later PEPs? Or should the keyword reach a different, > newer PEP if that newer PEP becomes a “more relevant” PEP for the > keyword?
I would not be shocked if http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-enum/ link is updated from the PEP 354 to the PEP 435, especially if both PEPs are draft. Identifiers should be carefully chosen, "unicode" is maybe not the best identifier for a PEP for example (they are many PEPs related to Unicode). Hum, how are PEP numbers generated? PEP *354* and *435* for enum? These numbers are not very random. We should check our PRNG :-) Victor _______________________________________________ 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
