Wow, thanks for all the quick responses! Martin wrote: > the PEP author is typically expected to implement the proposed > functionality (in many cases, having a draft implementation is > prerequisite to accepting it).
Fuzzyman wrote: > ...you could take your proposal forward by developing a set of tools > (e.g. documentation tools) that use your proposal. That way people > have a working implementation to use. Yes, I'm working on that and should have some tools reasonably functional within the next few months. I didn't want to commit a lot of time to writing tools if no one showed interested in the proposed conventions. Since no one is flaming the idea yet, I will get a move-on. The five example tools (that have come to mind so far) which I mentioned in the pre-pep were: * Document Generator (glossary, roadmap, manpages, bug lists, etc.) * Codetag History (useful for estimating, autopsy, etc.) * Code Statistics (a project Health-O-Meter) * Codetag Lint (aid in fixing almost-Codetags) * Story Manager/Browser (graphical viewer for various potential purposes) I'd love to hear any other ideas. Aahz and Terry wrote: > it's also true that there are plenty of informational PEPs... > ...It is similar in this way and complementary to reStructuredText > Docstring Format... Right, that's why I thought the PEP process was appropriate for this, like it was for restructuredtext. This of course is much smaller scale. I just want the proposal to live somewhere where I can get some feedback. I haven't seen much in the way of "+/-" yet, but that's fine since Codetags are not implemented/in use yet. amk wrote: > If such things are deemed off-topic for PEPs, then I think we should > have a separate set of documents for this (perhaps the suggested > PEEPS: Python Environment Enhancement Proposals). Sounds great. Make it a PEEP! I couldn't find anything official about PEEPs yet :-) I did create a link to PEEPs from the Front Page wiki. Terry wrote: > The OP might also look for codetag usage in Python source (I know of > XXX) Great idea. I tried this some months ago and this was one of the things that justified the idea. For some cursory stats: $ csrcs=$(find ~/archive/Python-2.4.1 -name *.c) $ for tag in XXX FIXME TODO BUG HACK IDEA NOTE RFE; do > echo -n "$tag: "; grep $tag $csrcs |wc -l > done XXX: 376 FIXME: 11 TODO: 12 BUG: 109 HACK: 0 IDEA: 0 NOTE: 32 RFE: 0 $ $ pysrcs=$(find /usr/lib/python2.3/ -maxdepth 2 -name '*.py') $ for tag in XXX FIXME TODO BUG HACK IDEA NOTE RFE; do > echo -n "$tag: "; grep $tag $pysrcs |wc -l > done XXX: 457 FIXME: 10 TODO: 57 BUG: 149 HACK: 0 IDEA: 0 NOTE: 50 RFE: 0 So I guess I'll now ask for ongoing feedback on the PEEP wiki site. I'm happy to wait for that feedback while the toolsmithing gets underway. Maybe a PEEP process discussion is warranted for another c.l.py thread. -- Micah Elliott -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
