Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> NB: There was no consensus on this "micro-language" on distutils-sig.
>> While I suspect I don't care as none of my packages rely on anything other
>> than other python packages, others did care, and I found the syntax Tarek
>> was proposing pretty clumsy.
>
> Please no bikeshedding again on the syntax.
Tarek, throwing "bikeshedding" at an important syntactical discussion
like this is verging on rude. Please stop it and accept that the best
solution has not been found yet.
> As I said to MAL, a PEP will be written with the precise syntax, and you will
> be able to make your voice heard on **Distutils-SIG**, even participate to it.
Great.
>> Does the PEP386 or the changes you're proposing for PEP314 cater for the
>> extra_requires stuff in setuptools? I know I use that quite heavily and I'm
>> not the only one...
>
> Let's open a thread on Distutils-SIG about PEP 314 planned changes.
OK, look forward to reading it and commenting.
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4