At 09:10 AM 9/28/2005 -0700, Micah Elliott wrote:
I agree that proof of value is necessary. Without a spec though it
will be hard to get people to know about a convention/toolset, so it's
a bit of a chicken-egg problem -- I can't have a pep until the tools are
in use, but the tools won't be used
On 9/29/05, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point about the lack of motivation was that there was little reason
shown why this should be a PEP instead of either:
1. Documentation for a specific tool, or group of tools
2. A specific project's process documentation
That's what I
Micah Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josiah an unofficial spec is sufficient. See koders.com and search
Josiah for 'fixme' to see some common variants.
But that's the problem -- there are already a bunch of unofficial
specs, which don't serve much purpose as such. It's a cool site. I
At 03:35 PM 9/26/2005 -0700, Micah Elliott wrote:
Please read/comment/vote. This circulated as a pre-PEP proposal
submitted to c.l.py on August 10, but has changed quite a bit since
then. I'm reposting this since it is now Open (under consideration)
at http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0350.html.
On 9/27/05, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:35 PM 9/26/2005 -0700, Micah Elliott wrote:
Please read/comment/vote. This circulated as a pre-PEP proposal
submitted to c.l.py on August 10, but has changed quite a bit since
then. I'm reposting this since it is now Open (under
Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:35 PM 9/26/2005 -0700, Micah Elliott wrote:
Please read/comment/vote. This circulated as a pre-PEP proposal
submitted to c.l.py on August 10, but has changed quite a bit since
then. I'm reposting this since it is now Open (under consideration)
At 03:35 PM 9/26/2005 -0700, Micah Elliott wrote:
Please read/comment/vote. This circulated as a pre-PEP proposal
submitted to c.l.py on August 10, but has changed quite a bit since
then. I'm reposting this since it is now Open (under consideration)
at http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0350.html.
