PEP 3118: Add canonical-doc & mention unimplemented changes. #4200
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
|
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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This makes sense to me. Also cross-linking python/cpython#47382.
|
@encukou The SC discussed this PR today and we agree that it would be good to update in this way. One suggestion is to be more comprehensive in the list of features that were never implemented. Could you add that, then promote the PR from Draft status? |
|
Thanks! The list is, thankfully, rather small. |
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/