Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PEP 3118: Add canonical-doc & mention unimplemented changes. #4200

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

encukou
Copy link
Member

@encukou encukou commented Jan 14, 2025

We recently got a PR to “finish” a specification from 2006, and someone wondering what's the status of the unimplemented parts.

I'd like to clarify what to do. IMO, at this point, adding the unimplemented parts should be treated as adding new features, with a new discussion.
I guess I'll need to ask the SC if that's the right process, but first I'd like to ask PEP editors for opinions.


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4200.org.readthedocs.build/

Copy link
Member

@AA-Turner AA-Turner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is a prudent change -- we are simply documenting the status quo here, with no substantive change to the PEP. At heart they are change proposal documents, rather than formal specifications. Indeed we note this in PEP 1.

If you do ask the steering council, perhaps it would be useful to seek a general opinion on changes of this nature, as they almost certainly have better things to do than consider 19-year-old PEPs!

A

@Rosuav
Copy link
Contributor

Rosuav commented Jan 14, 2025

I'm more inclined to act in generalities than to play whac-a-mole with different ancient PEPs. Otherwise, I do broadly agree with the change you're making.

Copy link
Member

@warsaw warsaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Small comment but otherwise, thanks!

peps/pep-3118.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes sense to me. Also cross-linking python/cpython#47382.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants