PEP 798: Mark as Final

[adqm]

• Final implementation has been merged (including tests and docs)
• PEP matches the final implementation
• Any substantial changes since the accepted version approved by the SC/PEP delegate
• Pull request title in appropriate format (PEP 123: Mark as Final)
• Status changed to Final (and Python-Version is correct)
• Canonical docs/spec linked with a canonical-doc directive
  (or canonical-pypa-spec for packaging PEPs,
  or canonical-typing-spec for typing PEPs)

---

@hugovk, I'm leaving a couple of the boxes unchecked for right now, because:

• While there weren't any wording changes since the Accepted version, I'm not 100% sure we got direct feedback about the current wording from an SC member.
• I don't think the one about canonical docs is relevant here (but happy to add something if I'm wrong about that).

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4812.org.readthedocs.build/

[JelleZijlstra]

I don't think the one about canonical docs is relevant here (but happy to add something if I'm wrong about that).

It should link to the docs for this feature in CPython.

While there weren't any wording changes since the Accepted version, I'm not 100% sure we got direct feedback about the current wording from an SC member.

Yes, looks like we didn't directly get approval from the SC: #4758 implemented what Pablo asked for in https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-798-unpacking-in-comprehensions/99435/60 but we didn't go back and get explicit approval. @pablogsal (since you're the one who posted the acceptance), do you think this is OK, or should we explicitly ask the SC for approval of the final text?

[adqm]

It should link to the docs for this feature in CPython.

Right. My confusion comes from the fact that the docs are somewhat scattered among the library reference; there isn't a single page that is about unpacking in comprehensions, per se (and I'm not sure where such a page would go if it did exist). I suppose we could link to https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html if we really need a link, but that seems off to me since that isn't really a page about this feature (and since it has less detail than the PEP about the specifics). Looking through some historical PEPs, it seems like not every final PEP has one of these links (e.g., 572).