At 08:20 AM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm happy approving Final status for the
*original* PEP 333 and I'm happy to approve a new PEP which includes
PJE's corrections.
Can we make it PEP 3333, then? ;-)
That number would at least communicate that it's the same thing, but
for Python 3.
Really, my reason for trying to do the (non Py3-specific) amendments
in a way that didn't require a new PEP number was because of the many
ancillary questions that it raises for the community, such as:
* Is this is some sort of competition/replacement to PEP 444?
* What happened to the old one, why can't we just use that?
* Why isn't there a different protocol version?
* How is this different from the old one?
To be fair, I *also* wanted to avoid all the work associated with
*answering* them. ;-) (Heck, I really wanted to avoid the work of
having to even *think* about which questions *might* arise and how
they'd need to be addressed.)
OTOH, I can certainly see that my attempt to avoid this has *already*
failed: it simply brought up a different set of questions, just on
Python-Dev instead of Web-SIG or Python-list.
Oh well. Perhaps making the numbering appear to be a continuation
will help a bit.
Another option would be to make a PEP that consists solely of the
amendments and errata themselves, as this would answer most of the
above questions directly.
Still another would be to abandon the effort to amend the PEP, and
simply leave things as they are now: AFAICT, the fact that these
amendments aren't in the PEP hasn't stopped anybody from *treating*
most of them as if they were. (Because everyone understands that
failure to follow them constitutes a bug in your program, even if it
technically complies with the spec.)
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG@python.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
