osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information


OK, last call! I'll accept the current draft tomorrow unless someone pushes
back.

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:37 AM Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23 June 2018 at 01:16, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> > That sounds like you're supporting PEP 561 as is, right?
>
> Aye, I'm personally fine with it - we do need to do something about
> automatically reserving the derived names on PyPI, but I don't think
> that's a blocker for the initial PEP acceptance (instead, it will go
> the other way: PEP acceptance will drive Warehouse getting updated to
> handle the convention already being adopted by the client tools).
>
> > Excuse my
> > ignorance, but where are API testing stub interfaces described or used?
>
> They're not - it's just the context for Donald referring to "stubs" as
> being a general technical term with other meanings beyond the "type
> hinting stub file" one.
>
> As such, there's three parts to explaining why we're not worried about
> the terminology clash:
>
> - Ethan searched for projects called "*-stubs" or "*_stubs" and didn't
> find any, so the practical impact of any terminology clash will be low
> - there isn't an established need to automatically find testing stub
> libraries based on an existing project name the way there is for type
> hints
> - even if such a need did arise in the future, the "py.typed" marker
> file and the different file extension for stub files within a package
> still gives us an enormous amount of design flexibility
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
>


-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180625/726e9e30/attachment.html>