On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Rittau <srittau at rittau.biz> wrote: > Am 14.11.2017 um 00:29 schrieb Guido van Rossum: > >> This is a nice piece of work. I expect to accept it pretty much verbatim >> (with some small edits, see https://github.com/python/peps/pull/467). I >> agree with Nick that we don't have to do anything specifically about >> control of foo_stubs packages -- nor do I think we need to worry about >> foo_stubs vs. foo-stubs. >> >> Everyone else: if you think this should not go through, now's the time to >> reply-all here! >> > > I am really looking forward to the implementation of this PEP and I am > glad that it is close to acceptance. One thing that is not really clear to > me is how module-only packages are handled. Say I have a package "foo" that > installs the file "foo.py" to site-packages, where would I install > "foo.pyi" and py.typed to? Or is this case not supported and I have to > convert the foo module into a package containing just __init__.py? > Good call. I think that conversion to a package is indeed the best approach -- it doesn't seem worth it to add more special-casing for this scenario. Ethan, if you agree, you should just add a sentence about this to the PEP. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20171113/926a5113/attachment.html>
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