Skip to content

PEP 734: Multiple Interpreters in the Stdlib #3549

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
ericsnowcurrently wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

PEP 734: Multiple Interpreters in the Stdlib #3549

ericsnowcurrently wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

@ericsnowcurrently
Copy link
Member

@ericsnowcurrently ericsnowcurrently commented Nov 27, 2023 •
edited
Loading

This a placeholder, to keep folks from getting confused about PEP 734 already being reserved (or about why there's a gap at PEP 734). I'm still working on the actual text in #3523 and am not sure how soon it might be merged. (In retrospect, I should have made a placeholder in the first place. 😄)

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

  • Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
  • File created from the latest PEP template
  • PEP has next available number, & set in filename (pep-NNNN.rst), PR title (PEP 123: <Title of PEP>) and PEP header
  • Title clearly, accurately and concisely describes the content in 79 characters or less
  • Core dev/PEP editor listed as Author or Sponsor, and formally confirmed their approval
  • Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
  • PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate
  • Required sections included
    • Abstract (first section)
    • Copyright (last section; exact wording from template required)
  • Code is well-formatted (PEP 7/PEP 8) and is in code blocks, with the right lexer names if non-Python
  • PEP builds with no warnings, pre-commit checks pass and content displays as intended in the rendered HTML
  • Authors/sponsor added to .github/CODEOWNERS for the PEP

Standards Track requirements

  • PEP topic discussed in a suitable venue with general agreement that a PEP is appropriate
  • Suggested sections included (unless not applicable)
    • Motivation
    • Rationale
    • Specification
    • Backwards Compatibility
    • Security Implications
    • How to Teach This
    • Reference Implementation
    • Rejected Ideas
    • Open Issues
  • Python-Version set to valid (pre-beta) future Python version, if relevant
  • Any project stated in the PEP as supporting/endorsing/benefiting from the PEP formally confirmed such
  • Right before or after initial merging, PEP discussion thread created and linked to in Discussions-To and Post-History

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--3549.org.readthedocs.build/

@ericsnowcurrently ericsnowcurrently requested a review from a team as a code owner November 27, 2023 17:36
@hugovk
Copy link
Member

hugovk commented Nov 27, 2023

We don't normally merge placeholders: gaps are inevitable as people work on drafts, and also not really a problem. There's at least three more like this in the 7xx range.

I guess a more pertinent question is: how far do you think #3523 is from merging? I've not reviewed it recently, but if you're ready, we could get it merged, and you can make as many PR updates as you like before opening discussion.

Your plan at #3523 (comment) to update the implementation before disussion, essentially as a proof-of-concept to help iterate, sounds good.

@ericsnowcurrently
Copy link
Member Author

ericsnowcurrently commented Nov 27, 2023

I think the other PR is fairly close, but there may be another round or two of review before it wraps up. I've holding off merging it as it's easier to review the whole thing before merging than after the fact.

All that said, I don't mind closing this PR. Presumably the PEP number won't change, but it's easy to adjust even if it does.

@ericsnowcurrently ericsnowcurrently deleted the pep-734-placeholder branch November 27, 2023 22:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@ericsnowcurrently @hugovk