> Again, it's a poor assumption that the dependency specifications will be > read as though they follow the rules of Python syntax. The colon doesn't > obviously mean what you're wanting it to mean in that context. Please > lose the Python-language bias when assessing these issues.
That's not the point at all. The point is consistency from one section to another within the same PEP/metadata file. > Requires-Dist (multiple use) > ... > > Examples: > > Requires-Dist: pkginfo > Requires-Dist: PasteDeploy > Requires-Dist: zope.interface (>3.5.0) If we can have the multiple-use rule for other sections, why cannot we use that same rule in the same file in another section. Making it: > Requires-Python (multiple use) > ... > > Examples: > > Requires-Dist: >= 2.4 > Requires-Dist: < 2.7 It doesn't make sense to move to an entirely different representation (using the comma) when there is already a convention for multiple-use running through the file as it has stood for many years. I just want it to be consistant.. otherwise it gets more complicated and harder than it needs to be. David _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
