[Python-3000] Renumbering old PEPs now targeted for Py3k?
Guido van Rossum
367 (new super) and PEP 344 (exception chaining). Are there any
others? I propose that we renumber these to numbers in the 3100+
range. I can see two forms of renaming:
(a) 344 -> 3344 and 367 -> 3367, i.e. add 3000 to the number
(b) just use the next available number
Preferences?
What other PEPs should be renumbered?
Should we renumber at all?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Pytho...@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/python-3000-garchive-63646%40googlegroups.com
Collin Winter
> A few PEPs with numbers < 400 are now targeting Python 3000, e.g. PEP
> 367 (new super) and PEP 344 (exception chaining). Are there any
> others? I propose that we renumber these to numbers in the 3100+
> range. I can see two forms of renaming:
>
> (a) 344 -> 3344 and 367 -> 3367, i.e. add 3000 to the number
>
> (b) just use the next available number
>
> Preferences?
>
> What other PEPs should be renumbered?
>
> Should we renumber at all?
Renumbering, +1; using the next 31xx number, +1.
Collin Winter
Chris Monson
On 6/6/07, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> A few PEPs with numbers < 400 are now targeting Python 3000, e.g. PEP
> 367 (new super) and PEP 344 (exception chaining). Are there any
> others? I propose that we renumber these to numbers in the 3100+
> range. I can see two forms of renaming:
>
> (a) 344 -> 3344 and 367 -> 3367, i.e. add 3000 to the number
>
> (b) just use the next available number
>
> Preferences?
>
> What other PEPs should be renumbered?
>
> Should we renumber at all?
Renumbering, +1; using the next 31xx number, +1.
Renumbering +1
Leaving (old PEP number) in place as a stripped down PEP that just points to the new number: +1
Collin Winter
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Pytho...@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Terry Reedy
"Chris Monson" <shi...@gmail.com> wrote in message | Leaving (old PEP
| the new number: +1
Good idea. And new number = next available. Special PEP numbers should be
for special PEPs.
tjr
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Pytho...@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/python-3000-garchive-63646%40googlegroups.com
Brett Cannon
On 6/6/07, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> A few PEPs with numbers < 400 are now targeting Python 3000, e.g. PEP
> 367 (new super) and PEP 344 (exception chaining). Are there any
> others? I propose that we renumber these to numbers in the 3100+
> range. I can see two forms of renaming:
>
> (a) 344 -> 3344 and 367 -> 3367, i.e. add 3000 to the number
>
> (b) just use the next available number
>
> Preferences?
>
> What other PEPs should be renumbered?
>
> Should we renumber at all?
Renumbering, +1; using the next 31xx number, +1.
+1 on this vote.
-Brett
Nick Coghlan
> A few PEPs with numbers < 400 are now targeting Python 3000, e.g. PEP
> 367 (new super) and PEP 344 (exception chaining). Are there any
> others? I propose that we renumber these to numbers in the 3100+
> range. I can see two forms of renaming:
>
> (a) 344 -> 3344 and 367 -> 3367, i.e. add 3000 to the number
>
> (b) just use the next available number
>
> Preferences?
>
> What other PEPs should be renumbered?
>
> Should we renumber at all?
>
+1 for renumbering to the next available 31xx number, with the old
number kept as a pointer to the new one.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncog...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
Barry Warsaw
Hash: SHA1
On Jun 6, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Chris Monson wrote:
> Renumbering, +1; using the next 31xx number, +1.
>
> Renumbering +1
> Leaving (old PEP number) in place as a stripped down PEP that just
> points to the new number: +1
I don't want to (accidentally) re-use the old number for some other
PEP, and PEPs are intended to be the historical record of a feature,
so my own preferences would be:
- - Leave the old PEP in place, with a pointer to the renumbered PEP
- - Renumber the PEP by putting a '3' in front of it instead of using
the next available
We don't have a template for renumbered PEPs so just come up with
something reasonable that fits the flavor of PEPs. If we need to
generalize later, we can.
- -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBRmfv6nEjvBPtnXfVAQL1yAP9FOGBU5TMa4HUiP8IRoqS/wemFOdotHwf
GwvNPIEthJXheUBS/lOWLpSCERUzToSfqWzUJWkOUk5JfxsDP6MgWKwfkOwhvp35
oihXrkWoc/XtK2qJipLXVWLhg/5CkPuvnjXSrVMzqpu5J26YPV/QIb2Xa0ICF90e
c2mQY0cuzWM=
=HMOs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Pytho...@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/python-3000-garchive-63646%40googlegroups.com
Georg Brandl
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> A few PEPs with numbers < 400 are now targeting Python 3000, e.g. PEP
>> 367 (new super) and PEP 344 (exception chaining). Are there any
>> others? I propose that we renumber these to numbers in the 3100+
>> range. I can see two forms of renaming:
>>
>> (a) 344 -> 3344 and 367 -> 3367, i.e. add 3000 to the number
>>
>> (b) just use the next available number
>>
>> Preferences?
>>
>> What other PEPs should be renumbered?
>>
>> Should we renumber at all?
>>
>
> +1 for renumbering to the next available 31xx number, with the old
> number kept as a pointer to the new one.
That would be my vote too.
Georg
--
Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less.
Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy
indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou
two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out.
Guido van Rossum
> Nick Coghlan schrieb:
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> A few PEPs with numbers < 400 are now targeting Python 3000, e.g. PEP
> >> 367 (new super) and PEP 344 (exception chaining). Are there any
> >> others? I propose that we renumber these to numbers in the 3100+
> >> range. I can see two forms of renaming:
> >>
> >> (a) 344 -> 3344 and 367 -> 3367, i.e. add 3000 to the number
> >>
> >> (b) just use the next available number
> >>
> >> Preferences?
> >>
> >> What other PEPs should be renumbered?
> >>
> >> Should we renumber at all?
> >>
> >
> > +1 for renumbering to the next available 31xx number, with the old
> > number kept as a pointer to the new one.
>
> That would be my vote too.
And so it is done. 344 -> 3134, 367 -> 3135. I've left the old ones in
place with status "Replaced" and a "Numbering Note" in front of the
abstract.
Are there any other candidates for such a renumbering?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)