Proposal: Let's require sensible reference/name in "How to teach this" section of PEPs

Packaging Standards
1

We’ve hit this with basically each of our PEPs that is introducing a new user-facing concept.

For certain PEPs, it is relatively straightforward what the user-facing name would be (eg: PEP 592 – Adding “Yank” Support to the Simple API | peps.python.org). For other PEPs, it’s fairly ambigous and evolves because of new PEPs (eg: Name for pyproject.toml builds and PEPs, Name for PEP 723 style dependency declarations).

Instead of someone driving this after the PEPs have made it through the entire process without this consideration, can we make this a part of the PEP process and nudge/require authors to consider this aspect as a part of their proposals?

17 Likes
2

+1. I’ll add this to the checklist of things I’ll expect in any future PEP that I approve.

6 Likes
3

This is a great idea!

1 Like
4

IMO, “How to teach this” is a good minimum requirement, but please also put it in the PEP’s title whenever it’s reasonable to do so.

5 Likes