Skip to content

PEP 749: Mark as Accepted #4406

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 6, 2025
Merged

PEP 749: Mark as Accepted #4406

merged 3 commits into from
May 6, 2025

Conversation

JelleZijlstra
Copy link
Member

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra commented May 6, 2025 •
edited by github-actions bot
Loading

  • SC/PEP Delegate has formally accepted/rejected the PEP and posted to the Discussions-To thread
  • Pull request title in appropriate format (PEP 123: Mark as Accepted)
  • Status changed to Accepted/Rejected
  • Resolution field points directly to SC/PEP Delegate official acceptance/rejected post, including the date (e.g. `01-Jan-2000 <https://discuss.python.org/t/12345/100>`__)
  • Acceptance/rejection notice added, if the SC/PEP delegate had major conditions or comments
  • Discussions-To, Post-History and Python-Version up to date

cc @warsaw

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4406.org.readthedocs.build/

@h-vetinari
Copy link

Congratulations on the acceptance of the PEP! 🥳

While reading again I noticed a small issue:

peps/peps/pep-0749.rst

Lines 878 to 880 in a9f1b15

See `python/cpython#130907`__ for implementation.
__ https://github.com/python/cpython/issue/130907

For one, that link is not working (would need to be /issues/ not /issue/), but more importantly, that issue does not actually discuss the implementation, or rather: the actual implementation ended up not doing the behaviour change implied by the write-up in the issue, but rather kept 3.13 behaviour.

@JelleZijlstra
Copy link
Member Author

Good catch, I'll change the link to the PR with what I ended up implementing.

h-vetinari
h-vetinari reviewed May 6, 2025
View reviewed changes
peps/pep-0749.rst
Comment on lines 878 to 879
is set only when module execution is complete. This is obviously
unintuitive.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is perhaps not important anymore now that the PEP is accepted, but you might want to change this sentence, given that the "obviously unintuitive" behaviour is now what PEP 749 implements.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's not what's currently implemented.

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra merged commit db044b6 into python:main May 6, 2025
5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@h-vetinari h-vetinari h-vetinari left review comments

@warsaw warsaw warsaw approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@JelleZijlstra @h-vetinari @warsaw