PEP 734: Multiple Interpreters in the Stdlib

[ericsnowcurrently]

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

• Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
• File created from the latest PEP template
• PEP has next available number, & set in filename (pep-NNNN.rst), PR title (PEP 123: <Title of PEP>) and PEP header
• Title clearly, accurately and concisely describes the content in 79 characters or less
• Core dev/PEP editor listed as Author or Sponsor, and formally confirmed their approval
• Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
• PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate
• Required sections included
  • Abstract (first section)
  • Copyright (last section; exact wording from template required)
• Code is well-formatted (PEP 7/PEP 8) and is in code blocks, with the right lexer names if non-Python
• PEP builds with no warnings, pre-commit checks pass and content displays as intended in the rendered HTML
• Authors/sponsor added to .github/CODEOWNERS for the PEP

Standards Track requirements

• PEP topic discussed in a suitable venue with general agreement that a PEP is appropriate
• Suggested sections included (unless not applicable)
  • Motivation
  • Rationale
  • Specification
  • Backwards Compatibility
  • Security Implications
  • How to Teach This
  • Reference Implementation
  • Rejected Ideas
  • Open Issues
• Python-Version set to valid (pre-beta) future Python version, if relevant
• Any project stated in the PEP as supporting/endorsing/benefiting from the PEP formally confirmed such
• Right before or after initial merging, PEP discussion thread created and linked to in Discussions-To and Post-History

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--3523.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0734/

[gvanrossum]

Hi Eric, I know we already spoke about some of this off-line, but I ran out of time reviewing all my comments. I know the next revision will be much improved!

[ericsnowcurrently]

@gvanrossum, I've made updates to address your review comments. Thanks again for taking the time to provide such useful feedback. ❤️

I'm concerned that the PEP is getting a little too long, so let me know if there are any sections that you think are unnecessary or have too much detail, if you can spare me the time.

[ericsnowcurrently]

FYI, once this PR is merged, I plan on updating the implementation (and update some benchmarks, to try it out) before posting the PEP for discussion. That way I can tweak the PEP if something doesn't feel right in practice.

[gvanrossum]

Are you awaiting more review from me? Im in Japan but can make a little time.

[ericsnowcurrently]

Sweet of you to offer, but no. If needed, we can chat when you are back.

[ericsnowcurrently]

There are probably a handful of things to tweak, like trim back some of the fluff, but I'll do that in follow-up PRs.