On 23 June 2018 at 01:16, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > That sounds like you're supporting PEP 561 as is, right?
Aye, I'm personally fine with it - we do need to do something about automatically reserving the derived names on PyPI, but I don't think that's a blocker for the initial PEP acceptance (instead, it will go the other way: PEP acceptance will drive Warehouse getting updated to handle the convention already being adopted by the client tools). > Excuse my > ignorance, but where are API testing stub interfaces described or used? They're not - it's just the context for Donald referring to "stubs" as being a general technical term with other meanings beyond the "type hinting stub file" one. As such, there's three parts to explaining why we're not worried about the terminology clash: - Ethan searched for projects called "*-stubs" or "*_stubs" and didn't find any, so the practical impact of any terminology clash will be low - there isn't an established need to automatically find testing stub libraries based on an existing project name the way there is for type hints - even if such a need did arise in the future, the "py.typed" marker file and the different file extension for stub files within a package still gives us an enormous amount of design flexibility Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
