pre-PEP for optional 'pass'

[Bengt Richter]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:39:02 -0400, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
[...]
>That's a bug in the PEP process.  Rejected PEPs *should* have a reason
>for rejection, and the authors of those PEPs should be reminded of
>their responsibility.
>
>> Which _is_ a waste of effort, IMO.
>
>Half true.  It still tells people not to try proposing the same idea
>again.
The danger is that if they haven't seen _their_ rationale recorded and rejected,
they will delude themselves into thinking they have an irresistible rationale
that should be presented to sway you for the good of the universe ;-)

Regards,
Bengt Richter