Please add the "skip news" label, I can't seem to.

On consideration, inclined to change "Used by" to "Consulted by".

Would you mind posting a screenshot of the result?

Would you mind posting a screenshot of the result?

Ah! The output feels a bit wrong to me; I think the versionadded note (with optional details) should be separate from the PEP note.

Ah! The output feels a bit wrong to me; I think the versionadded note (with optional details) should be separate from the PEP note.

I differ on this. They're together for two reasons: visual compactness (just one line of change/introduced/reference info) and because the introduction in the release is closely tied to the associated PEP.

OTOH, on visual review the capital "O" in "originally" should be lowercased, so that the "New in" line reads cleanly as "new here, because of this PEP".

I'm rather uncomfortable with pulling the "originally specified in" line out into a distinct paragraph - it will make the docs far more vertically spaced for a small addition, and as stated I consider the version and the PEP to be very closely associated.

Bear in mind that I propose to add this link to a PEP to every "New in version" line in the docs (progressively, working back in time). That's a lot of additional vertical space in the long run.

Bear in mind that I propose to add this link to a PEP to every "New in version" line in the docs (progressively, working back in time). That's a lot of additional vertical space in the long run.

Of course, that also means we should reach an agreement about the form, because it is a lot of edits.

I distinctly want to add this information while minimising the physical space intrusion into the docs.

Ah! The output feels a bit wrong to me; I think the versionadded note (with optional details) should be separate from the PEP note.

Hmm. Considering the separation side of things. I'll try to make a .. pepfor macro, see how it looks; that would potentially be helpful elesewhere as well (maybe, undecided yet). Though I'm still unhappy about the additional vertical space.

I'll try to make a .. pepfor macro, see how it looks; that would potentially be helpful elesewhere as well (maybe, undecided yet).

Ouch! What a can of worms. Sphinx is amazingly complex for what I'd imagined a simple case. Abandoned this for now.

However, on the theme of alternative approaches, might I show you this in the "Yield Expressions" section of reference/expressions.html:

This has a "Changed in version 3.3" line in the same style as my proposed "Originally specified by PEP" note, and for contrast a much bulkier "See also:" section just below it. I prefer the former for the PEP reference, myself.

For your example, 'changed in' comes with expectation of some explanation on what the changes are so text on the same line makes sense, but it's slightly less so for a 'new in'. That said, there are nonetheless current examples with the note being on the same line (though maybe slightly redundant in this case). There is also an example where the note on the PEP is indeed just on its own line, but if there isn't an established convention I think both cases are fine, regardless of the additional space.

I also do concur with Irit's comment in that since there's some existing phrasing that uses 'in' instead of 'by', might as well just swap it over for consistency.