On 2020-06-23 08:14, Christian Kastner wrote: > If it's not, then it's just about utility, and then honestly I don't see > enough of it to merit the head-ache of breaking with the conventional name. Having thought about that part some more, I realized I need to retract it. I might not see the utility of it, but seeing as a lot of thought already went into DEP-14, I can only conclude that a sufficient number of other people see it.