Oops, right, I wanted to write "I don't think that adding a single
method deserves its own PEP."
2016-10-12 18:37 GMT+02:00 Stephen J. Turnbull
> 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