On 24 June 2018 at 17:47, Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018, at 7:19 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> What do you think? (Thomas, I'd love your thoughts in particular :-).) > > I agree that it looks nicer, but I'm not sure that it's worth the added > complexity: is 'flit' equivalent to 'flit.__build_api__' (i.e. from flit > import __build_api__), or to 'flit:__build_api__' (import flit and get an > attribute called __build_api__)? > > For Flit, I treat the buildsystem table as boilerplate, and 'flit init' > inserts it automatically. So the extra word in 'flit.buildapi' is a very > minor inconvenience.
Explicitly encouraging build systems to provide an `init` command that configures the `build-requires` table appropriately (creating `pyproject.toml` if necessary) would be another way of addressing Nathaniel's UX concern (and has the virtue of keeping PEP 517 as simple as we can reasonably make it). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/NHW2RFRQ7QIZRHHEXWGEPRMBYT5IHO6A/
