On 3 February 2016 at 06:49, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > Yury Selivanov writes: > > > Not sure about that... PEPs take a LOT of time :( > > Informational PEPs need not take so much time, no more than you would > spend on ceval.txt. I'm sure a PEP would get a lot more attention > from reviewers, too. > > Even if you PEP the whole thing, as you say it's a (big ;-) > implementation detail. A PEP won't make things more controversial (or > less) than they already are. I don't see why it would take that much > more time than ceval.txt.
For a typical PEP, you need to explain both the status quo *and* the state after the changes, as well as provide references to the related discussions. I think in this case the main target audience for the technical details should be future maintainers, so Yury writing a ceval.txt akin to the current dictnotes.txt, listsort.txt, etc would cover the essentials. If someone else wanted to also describe the change in a PEP for ease of future reference, using Yury's ceval.txt as input, I do think that would be a good thing, but I wouldn't want to make the enhancement conditional on someone volunteering to do that. 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
