Home Original page

[Python-Dev] PEP 350: Codetags

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Thu Sep 29 18:10:09 CEST 2005 
At 09:10 AM 9/28/2005 -0700, Micah Elliott wrote:
>I agree that proof of value is necessary.  Without a spec though it
>will be hard to get people to know about a convention/toolset, so it's
>a bit of a chicken-egg problem -- I can't have a pep until the tools are
>in use, but the tools won't be used until programmers have
>means/motivation to use them, a pep.

My point about the lack of motivation was that there was little reason 
shown why this should be a PEP instead of either:

1. Documentation for a specific tool, or group of tools
2. A specific project's process documentation

Are you proposing that this format be used by the Python developers for 
Python itself?  A process spec like this seems orthogonal to 
Python-the-language.

To put it another way, this seems like writing a PEP on how to do eXtreme 
Programming, or perhaps a PEP on how the blogging "trackback" protocol 
works.  Certainly you might implement those things using Python, but the 
spec itself seems entirely orthogonal to Python.  I don't really see why 
it's a PEP, as opposed to just a published spec on your own website, unless 
you intend for say, the Python stdlib to conform to it.
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list