Repository navigation
Submission for SC consideration: PEP 663 - Enum str(), format(), and repr() changes #76
Description
A review of this PEP would be greatly appreciated, particularly with its type (currently informational), and with its backwards compatibility statement:
Backwards compatibility of stringified objects is not guaranteed across major
Python versions, and there will be backwards compatibility breaks where
Please let me know if either of those two should be changed.
Activity
warsaw commentedon Oct 18, 2021
@ethanfurman While the SC continues to deliberate PEP 663, I have a question: was the PEP applied to 3.11a0+ accidentally? https://bugs.python.org/issue45493
ethanfurman commentedon Oct 18, 2021
As I recall, the 3.10 branch was in existence when I directly reverted
enum.pyfrom that branch. The 3.11 branch was not affected. My reasoning (besides a simple lack of time) was that by staying in the 3.11 branch the changes would have more exposure, which I believe was a driving factor in the SC asking me to revert for 3.10.Also, since the SC declined to require the reversion, but left it up to me, I fully expect to have my changes approved -- and more exposure for those changes is better than less.
ethanfurman commentedon Oct 18, 2021
I did update the PEP by splitting the two huge tables into four (hopefully) easier to read tables.
ethanfurman commentedon Nov 16, 2021
Going back to look at the current state of Enum in 3.11, it quickly became apparent that what is there is neither 3.10, nor PEP 663 -- the changes I was finally happy with never made it to code, and the push became getting 3.10 reverted, and then writing PEP 663, and I forgot that 3.11 was in a kind of limbo.
warsaw commentedon Nov 17, 2021
The Steering Council has rejected PEP 663.