On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Vinay Sajip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Is the entire justification for this feature not "we >> don't trust you to put == in run_requires", > > I'm confused - where would the == which you speak of go? IIUC a run_requires > looks like > > "run_requires": [ { "requires": ["SoftCushions"], "extra": "warmup" } > ] > > > where each dictionary in the list could have "requires", "extra" and > "environment" keys. The "environment" value might have "==" as part of a > marker expression. Are you talking about something else? > > Regards, > > Vinay Sajip
That would be the == in "requires": ["SoftCushions == 4"] which IIUC in the current PEP would be allowed in meta_ but disallowed in run_requirements. Nick has said in the past that he thinks it's easier to teach the 4 specific concepts without having to [first] explain the general case. Most of our disagreements have been about this issue: whether a distinction is important enough to deserve special treatment in the spec, or whether it can be expressed when needed as a consequence of having a more general format. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
