On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Jim Fulton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Philippe Ombredanne > <[email protected]> wrote: >> A python implementation of the proposed draft would have to monkey >> patch standard functions (platform.version, platform.machine and >> platform.python_implementation) with their invocation results or would >> require rather complex parsing..... > > I hadn't noticed that you were exposing the platform module already. > Sorry. I should have checked. No problem.
> The PEP's treatment of the platform module is unfortunate. > I was going to mention this before, but I didn't think we were > exposing platform module and though "whatever". The parsing would be rather complex to implement as specified.... Do we have a a PEP426 reference implementation somewhere? >> Since this is a draft, could we instead avoid a module-like syntax for >> all EXPR and instead use this: > I have no interest in supporting a Python expression subset. > I'd rather stick with what you did originally and just expose the > modules. This is simpler and easier for people to remember. Agreed, that was my first take on this... but I am a trooper too :D So I commited and added to the buildout pull request a commit with PEP426 like markers and then another that undoes it ... With cherry picking you can pick and choose which one you want, the last commit in the queue being WITHOUT PEP426 markers .. -- Philippe Ombredanne +1 650 799 0949 | [email protected] DejaCode Enterprise at http://www.dejacode.com nexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
