-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
PEP 791: edits (address SC feedback) #4639
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
N/B: This extends I'll wait for more feedback in the d.p.o thread, then make this ready for review. |
You should also update the PEP to use |
I'm not sure. IMO, this should be postponed till final resolution of the SC. On one hand, SC preference was expressed sufficiently clear. On another hand, this will also require adjustment in the implementation. That might be a waste of work. I think it's clear that it's a minor point and that decision on module naming - left to SC. |
SC expressed a strong preference for |
9d413e3
to
48caa4b
Compare
7e51943
to
7d26e47
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
@skirpichev: Tell me when it's ready to be merged.
PEP 123: Summary of changes
)📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4639.org.readthedocs.build/
https://pep-previews--4639.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0791/