Oops, right, I wanted to write "I don't think that adding a single method deserves its own PEP."
Victor 2016-10-12 18:37 GMT+02:00 Stephen J. Turnbull <turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp>: > Victor Stinner writes: > > 2016-10-12 11:34 GMT+02:00 INADA Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com>: > > > > I see. My proposal should be another PEP (if PEP is required). > > > > I don't think that adding a single method deserves its own method. > > You mean "deserves own PEP", right? I interpreted Nick to say that > "the reasons that applied to PEP 367 don't apply here, so you can Just > Do It" (subject to the usual criteria for review, but omit the PEP). > > I'm not sure whether he was channeling Guido or that should be > qualified with an IMO or IMHO. > > > _______________________________________________ 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
