Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2009-12-28 02:17:22 Ben Finney napisał(a): >> Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar >>> <sridharr at activestate.com> wrote: >>>> Also, "Requires-Python: 3" would include all 3.X versions, correct? >>> Correct, because, "Requires-Python: 3" is equivalent to >>> "Requires-Python: ~= 3" which is equivalent to "Requires-Python: >>> 3.x.x" >> This is totally counter to conventional comparisons, and is an excellent >> example of why the equivalence of ‘3’ to ‘>=3, <4’ is a bad idea. >> >> Instead, the default should be ‘==’. That is, ‘Requires-Python: 3’ >> should be equivalent to ‘Requires-Python: ==3’; and only “3” or “3.0” or >> “3.0.0” etc. will match. I maintain that is what most people will expect >> on seeing that syntax. >> >> If a less strict range is desired, the existing comparison operators >> ‘>’, ‘>=’, ‘<’, ‘<=’ are sufficient, more obvious, and more explicit. In >> other words, to get the meaning you desire above, the existing operators >> can be used: ‘Requires-Python: >=3, <4’. > > IMHO 'Requires-Python: 3*' (or '3.*') would be better than 'Requires-Python: >=3, <4'. > '3.*' would be the better of the two.
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