PEP 655: Mark as accepted

[JelleZijlstra]

cc @davidfstr. Also, I opened https://bugs.python.org/issue47087 to track the CPython implementation, but couldn't find you there

[CAM-Gerlach]

LGTM, thanks.

FYI, following standard GitHub flow and creating these branches in the fork rather than upstream will avoid running and displaying duplicate sets of checks (as well as cluttering the upstream branch list).

[gpshead]

fyi the typing-sig version is https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/thread/AJEDNVC3FXM5QXNNW5CR4UCT4KI5XVUE/ - the emails on this one were caught in moderation so they didn't appear at the same time ;) as discussion was on typing-sig, maybe link to that one?

[CAM-Gerlach]

Yeah, but the the Typing-SIG thread is already linked in the Discussions-To header, and Python-Dev is the canonical place to post (non-Packaging, given its SC-delegated authority) PEP resolutions per PEP 1, as most recently discussed in #2266 , implemented in #2346 and approved by the SC in python/steering-council#113:

Except where otherwise approved by the Steering Council, pronouncements of PEP resolution will be posted to the Python-Dev mailing list.

[davidfstr]

LGTM. 🥳

Now it's time to implement. @JelleZijlstra I did add myself as Nosy on the BPO item. I did look for a way to self-assign it since I'm guessing the implementation will fall to me but did not find a way.

[JelleZijlstra]

@davidfstr it looks like BPO doesn't let me assign an issue to non-core devs, but please go ahead. If you don't have time I can help out with the implementation too; we just have to make sure it goes in before the feature freeze in about a month.

[davidfstr]

we just have to make sure it goes in before the feature freeze in about a month.

I'm tracking this key date very carefully. ^_^