Issue35651
Created on 2019-01-03 17:34 by ExplodingCabbage, last changed 2022-04-11 14:59 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Messages (2) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg332940 - (view) | Author: Mark Amery (ExplodingCabbage) * | Date: 2019-01-03 17:34 | |
PEP 257 says: > Please see PEP 258, "Docutils Design Specification" [2], for a detailed description of attribute and additional docstrings. But PEP 258 is rejected. It doesn't seem coherent that an active PEP can defer some of its details to a rejected PEP - and indeed it makes me unsure how much of the surrounding commentary in PEP 257 to treat as active. e.g. should I treat the entire concepts of "attribute docstrings" and "additional docstrings" as rejected, given the rejection of PEP 258, or are they still part of the current spec, given that they're referenced in PEP 257 prior to any mention of PEP 258? It's currently completely unclear. |
|||
| msg333066 - (view) | Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) *  |
Date: 2019-01-05 17:41 | |
A rejected PEP still exists in perpetuity, and can still be used as a reference. Also, the reason for PEP 258's rejection is not that it is invalid, but that it's not slated for stdlib inclusion. So I think that the reference is still useful, and I don't think there's anything that needs to be done here. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:59:09 | admin | set | github: 79832 |
| 2019-02-21 23:32:21 | mihaic | set | nosy:
+ mihaic |
| 2019-01-05 17:41:12 | gvanrossum | set | status: open -> closed resolution: wont fix messages: + msg333066 stage: resolved |
| 2019-01-04 21:36:19 | terry.reedy | set | messages: - msg333003 |
| 2019-01-04 21:35:59 | terry.reedy | set | nosy:
+ terry.reedy, gvanrossum, goodger messages:
+ msg333003 |
| 2019-01-03 17:45:38 | barry | set | nosy:
+ barry |
| 2019-01-03 17:34:26 | ExplodingCabbage | create | |