PEP 797: Arbitrary Object Immortalization

[ZeroIntensity]

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

---

This is following this discussion off DPO. I decided to split this into two PEPS: one for arbitrary object immortalization, and another for shared object proxies (similar to how PEP 683 and PEP 684 were split). But, I'm unsure if this was the right call. If this would all be better in one giant PEP, please let me know.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4497.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0797/

[JelleZijlstra]

This abstract is much longer than it should be.

[ZeroIntensity]

Ok, will shorten it. Which parts do you think should be excluded/moved?

[JelleZijlstra]

Most of it, really. The abstract should generally only be a few paragraphs. It explains primarily what the PEP does, not the motivation or implementation details.

[ZeroIntensity]

I've now significantly reduced the size of the abstract. Does that look better?