PEPs should be included with the documentation download

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Jerry Hill <malaclypse2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:55 PM,  <random832 at fastmail.us> wrote:
>> I think, though, that if there's any useful information that can be
>> obtained by reading accepted PEPs but not the documentation, or if
>> things are explained less clearly than in the PEPs, that's a bug in the
>> documentation, and should be remedied by adding to the documentation.
>
> Personally, the only PEPs I've used as reference material as PEP 8
> (the Python Style Guide), and PEP 249 (the Python Database API
> Specification v2.0).  If I recall correctly, one of the database
> adapters I used basically said that they were PEP 249 compliant, and
> didn't have much documentation beyond that.
>
> It seems to me that adding the PEPs to the compiled documentation
> would be a good thing.  They are at least as useful as the Language
> Reference or the Embedding and Extending Python sections that are
> already included.

Ah, yes, there are a few that would be good. But I don't really see
that all the internally bits (PEP 393, anyone?) and rejected proposals
(PEP 315) need to be in the download. I wouldn't expect the full set
of RFCs to be included with the docs for the socket module, so I
equally don't expect the PEPs to be included.

ChrisA