PEP 798: Mark as Accepted #4753
Conversation
|
Thanks @hugovk! I was actually going to put in a PR for this (and for the actual implementation) this weekend, so the timing is perfect 🙂 If you think it works just to add this clarifying paragraph at the top, that seems fine to me. My updated version instead rewrites the relevant portions of the PEP, but I'm not sure which approach is preferable. |
|
I don't mind which way, let's ask @JelleZijlstra. |
|
I'd prefer changing the main text. It will be confusing for future readers of the PEP if the text of the PEP claims something different than the implementation. |
|
Sounds good. @adqm Would you like to open your own PR? Then we can close this one. |
|
@hugovk Sure thing! I'll make another pass through my local changes and put in a PR, probably tomorrow morning. |
3 participants
Discussions-TothreadPEP 123: Mark as Accepted)Statuschanged toAccepted/RejectedResolutionfield points directly to SC/PEP Delegate official acceptance/rejected post, including the date (e.g.`01-Jan-2000 <https://discuss.python.org/t/12345/100>`__)Discussions-To,Post-HistoryandPython-Versionup to date@adqm @edemaine
We forgot to mark this as accepted.
I added the modification required by the SC at https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-798-unpacking-in-comprehensions/99435/60 as a note.
Perhaps just the first paragraph is enough?
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4753.org.readthedocs.build/