I might not be the cleverest, but I fail to see how resting a module’s fate on its name is good reasoning. Is the SC saying they begrudgingly accepted this PEP only because they figured they could shove the module under the concurrent namespace, or am I misunderstanding? Why’d you even come out and say such a thing publicly? This is a complete (and completely surreal) kick in the guts for the PEP author. Seriously, what?
1 Like