OK, last call! I'll accept the current draft tomorrow unless someone pushes back.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:37 AM Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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
