Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > Antoine, Stefan: There doesn't appear to be a bright line separating > "this should get a PEP" from "this doesn't need a PEP". That said, > changes to the C API for CPython don't seem to merit PEPs very often, > the recent "Stable ABI" being the lone exception to the rule I can > recall. Also, Guido already said (in python-dev) he didn't think it > merited a PEP, and I tend to agree.
My argument for requiring a PEP is that this change will not only affect the people maintaining the clinic code. It will affect everyone contributing and maintaining code in the CPython codebase. It's much more than "just an addition to the C API", it's a change in how CPython is developed. Writing and proposing a PEP brings public scrutiny in a much more visible, and also better-recorded, way than a bug entry on a tracker. Note that writing a PEP doesn't mean that there'll be a huge discussion about it. And you needn't post it on python-ideas, you can post it on python-dev instead. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16612> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
