PEP for new modules (I read PEP 2)

[Gerrit Holl]

"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Christoph Becker-Freyseng wrote:
> >So basically I want to relocate the real Specification, because the more 
> >specific it gets the more it looks like a documentation and the prePEP 
> >grows and grows ...
> >
> >
> >Is this a valid option for a PEP?
> 
> If you are asking: "Can we have an implementation before we write the 
> PEP?", the answer is "Certainly, yes".

I don't think that's what we're asking. The question is: what level of
detail should the "Specification" part of the PEP have? The highest
level of detail is the full documentation - but that would mean the PEP
would be to large. Is it allowed to link the documentation - even if it
is docuemntation for a not-yet-existing module - as the specification?

> The PEP procedure is designed to avoid wasting efforts in implementing
> ideas that have no chance to ever get accepted to the Python core.
> If this is no concern for you (i.e. you are willing to accept the risk
> of wasting efforts), you can certainly implement the thing, wait for
> user feedback, and then write the PEP.

Hmm, the earlier discussion did show there certainly is a chance it will
ever get accepted, so that's not really the problem. But there are a lot
of ways to do a Path class, and we don't want to spend too much effort
into way A if way B has a lot more chance to be accepted.

yours,
Gerrit.

P.S.
Even a rejected PEP is not a waste of time: one can learn a lot from
writing a PEP, and gets one name on the PEP-list ;-)

-- 
124. If any one deliver silver, gold, or anything else to another for
safe keeping, before a witness, but he deny it, he shall be brought before
a judge, and all that he has denied he shall pay in full.
          -- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
-- 
PrePEP: Builtin path type
    http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/creaties/path/pep-xxxx.html
Asperger's Syndrome - a personal approach:
	http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/english/