On 19 November 2015 at 07:30, Marcus Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Its included in the complete grammar, otherwise it can't be tested. >> Note that that the PEP body refers to the IETF document for the >> definition of URIs. e.g. exactly what you suggest. > > > doesn't this imply any possible URI can theoretically be a PEP440 direct > reference URI ? > > Is that true? > > It's unclear to me what PEP440's definition really is with words like "The > exact URLs and targets supported will be tool dependent" > > Will "direct references" ever be well-defined? or open to whatever any tool > decides can be an artifact reference?
We can define the syntax without capturing all the tool support, which is what PEP-440 and thus this PEP does. What I mean here is that e.g. pip may not support a given VCS today, but it can be added without changing the definition of a URI. We can't demand that all tools support all VCS's reasonably, but we can demand that all tools be able to recognise that its a direct reference and act accordingly (e.g. try to clone it, error because direct references aren't allowed in that context, etc). -Rob -- Robert Collins <[email protected]> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
