Mark 3.12 PEPs as Final

python / peps

Python Enhancement Proposals

https://peps.python.org

4.27k stars 1.49k forks source link

Mark 3.12 PEPs as Final #3817

Open ncoghlan opened 1 month ago

ncoghlan commented 1 month ago

I believe the following two accepted PEPs targeting 3.12 are actually complete:

[x] PEP-683: Immortal Objects, Using a Fixed Refcount (@ericsnowcurrently, @eduardo-elizondo)
[ ] PEP-701: Syntactic formalization of f-strings (@pablogsal)

I'm assuming the following PEP is being left open until the field is actually removed in 3.14 (which could be implemented on main now that 3.13 is in beta):

[ ] PEP-699: Remove private dict version field added in PEP 509 (@Fidget-Spinner)

I'm also not sure if the conversion of the standard library to multi-phase initialisation is complete yet:

[ ] PEP-687: Isolating modules in the standard library (@erlend-aasland, @encukou)

(Posted based on https://discuss.python.org/t/accepted-but-not-final-python-3-12-peps/54720, and adopting https://github.com/python/peps/issues/3781 as a good precedent to follow. PEP 684 was open when the Discuss thread was started, but subsequently marked as Final in https://github.com/python/peps/pull/3810).

encukou commented 1 month ago

PEP-687 just got "feature-complete" for 3.13 beta 2, thanks to Eric and Erlend. AFAIK there's more cleanup to do.

PEP-683 needs updating the TODOs.

Fidget-Spinner commented 1 month ago

I'm not sure what to do with PEP 699. AFAIK, the field has been repurposed to mean something else for the most part by now. All that's left should be to remove the code guaranteeing the increments in 3.14 and it should be done?

ericsnowcurrently commented 1 month ago

Yes, 683 is should be marked "final".

ncoghlan commented 1 month ago

@ericsnowcurrently #3824 marks PEP 683 as Final. The edits to the acceptance criteria need to be confirmed as correct, as do the two unchecked checkboxes.

I'm wondering if it might be worth adding more detail on immortal objects to a new subheading in https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/refcounting.html though, as the best canonical doc reference I could find in the reference docs is to the term reference count which really just mentions immortal objects rather than explaining them. A glossary entry referencing that new subsection would also be helpful.

The two explanatory links in the C API docs go to the PEP, which is about to be marked as no longer to be trusted as living documentation.

ericsnowcurrently commented 1 month ago

I'm wondering if it might be worth adding more detail on immortal objects to a new subheading in https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/refcounting.html though, as the best canonical doc reference I could find in the reference docs is to the term reference count which really just mentions immortal objects rather than explaining them. A glossary entry referencing that new subsection would also be helpful.

The two explanatory links in the C API docs go to the PEP, which is about to be marked as no longer to be trusted as living documentation.

Let's discuss this on https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/120426.

ericsnowcurrently commented 1 month ago

Regarding PEP 687, you can see the implementation status on https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/103092. Only the faulthandler module is left and I'm not sure that's worth waiting to mark the PEP as final.