Skip to content
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.

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

PEP 646: Mark as Final #3671

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

hugovk
Copy link
Member

@hugovk hugovk commented Feb 15, 2024

  • Final implementation has been merged (including tests and docs)
  • PEP matches the final implementation
  • Any substantial changes since the accepted version approved by the SC/PEP delegate
  • Pull request title in appropriate format (PEP 123: Mark Final)
  • Status changed to Final (and Python-Version is correct)
  • Canonical docs/spec linked with a canonical-doc directive
    (or canonical-pypa-spec for packaging PEPs,
    or canonical-typing-spec for typing PEPs)

Helps #3579 and #2872.


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--3671.org.readthedocs.build/

Copy link
Member

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

PEP 646 actually also made some grammar changes that as far as I can tell aren't documented in the language reference. I'll open an issue on CPython.

peps/pep-0646.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
peps/pep-0646.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
peps/pep-0646.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
@raea3225

This comment was marked as abuse.

@hugovk
Copy link
Member Author

hugovk commented May 7, 2024

@python/organization-owners Please block @raea3225 from the org, they're repeatedly posting time-wasting comments. I've already reported them to GitHub.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants