On 13 January 2017 at 12:43, Stephen J. Turnbull <turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > Mark E. Haase writes: > > > I don't think an informational PEP would make threads like Python Review > > shorter and/or more productive. The OP clearly didn't do much research, so > > it seems unlikely he would read an informational PEP. > > But just saying "do your research" (which is quite reasonable without > the informational PEP) is much less friendly than including the URL to > the informational PEP in the kind of "canned response" you suggest. > That's what Steven is aiming at. > > I'm not sure that a PEP is the best format, as the normal PEP process is > not a good match for something that is likely to need to be updated as > "good syntax" is discovered for ideas formerly considered un-Pythonic > and other languages come up with neat new ideas that don't have > obvious Pythonic syntax. Andrew Barnert's blog post (thanks, Chris!) > http://stupidpythonideas.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-following-idioms-matters.html > is a good start, and Nick Coghlan's "Curious Efficiency" blog has > related material, I think. Perhaps pointers to those would be good.
Expanding on https://docs.python.org/devguide/langchanges.html would likely be a more useful format than an informational PEP. As a starting point, https://docs.python.org/devguide/faq.html#suggesting-changes should likely be consolidated into that page, and the FAQ entry simplified into a link to a new subsection on that page. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
