[Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Mon Jun 25 15:15:17 EDT 2018

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 <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

On 23 June 2018 at 01:16, Guido van Rossum <guido at 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 | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180625/726e9e30/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list