Status of PEP's?

[David Eppstein]

In article <3C83C368.3B98FEC8 at ccvcorp.com>,
 Jeff Shannon <jeff at ccvcorp.com> wrote:

> I believe that Tim's comment was regarding how "for 3 < i < 10" would be
> parsed.

That was also how I interpreted it.

> I vaguely recall a discussion, from the first time around, that the
> parser will grab "for 3" and then choke on the rest.  It would require
> significant modifications to the parser to have it read the entire line and
> then analyze it.  This amount of work has been deemed not justifiable for the
> (questionable) benefits of having this construct.

Deemed by whom?

It seems like it should be really easy to modify the parser to parse
    "for" expression ":"
and then check whether the expression is an "in" or a comparison...

> Of course, this is my vague memories, and could be totally wrong.  Having a
> PEP to archive things like this would be nice (even though I'd be hoping that
> it gets rejected).

I've started working on one.

I'd like to know why you think it should be rejected, so that I can include 
all relevant views in the discussion section.
-- 
David Eppstein       UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
eppstein at ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/