Skip to content

PEP 679: Add new Discussions-To #4580

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 8, 2025
Merged

PEP 679: Add new Discussions-To #4580

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion peps/pep-0679.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ PEP: 679
Title: New assert statement syntax with parentheses
Author: Pablo Galindo Salgado <pablogsal@python.org>,
Stan Ulbrych <stanulbrych@gmail.com>,
Discussions-To: Pending
Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-679-new-assert-statement-syntax-with-parentheses/103634
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please also add this to Post-History.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why, I see this is not done in general, e.g. 59918e8#diff-ac21889cf9c6a5c89d5da3cf7f2c2318360d829d7e2e3c08ec7ade97e0a31a82R4-R7?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's a requirement per PEP 1 & 12. Post-History tracks major discussions, potentially including prior to drafting as a PEP. Discussions-To is the forum for current discussions. The former is far more important from a history and archives perspective.

A

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I understand that, and I don't mind doing it, I can do it immediately, or wait a while and bundle it with other changes, whichever you prefer.

But out of curiosity, why was this not done here: #4578?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That was a mistake on my side. I'll correct it in the next update.

Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 07-Jan-2022
Expand Down