Am 17.11.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On 17 November 2015 at 23:43, Thomas Güttler
<guettl...@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
Am 17.11.2015 um 13:48 schrieb Donald Stufft:
On Nov 17, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com
<mailto:n...@pobox.com>> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2015 11:57 PM, "Thomas Güttler" <guettl...@thomas-guettler.de
<mailto:guettl...@thomas-guettler.de>> wrote:
The job of a dependency is to enable tools like pip [#pip]_ to find
the right
package to install.
My worries: AFAIK pip is not a library.
I don't want to re-implement code to handle this pep.
I would like to re-use.
But AFAIK pip is not a library.
I am stupid and don't know how to proceed.
Please tell me what to do.
Presumably there will be a dependency parser added to the 'packaging'
library, which already exists as a standard
place to stick stuff like this, so you'll just use that. (E.g. it's what
pip uses for PEP 440 version parsing today.)
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/packaging
Nice, a re-usable library :-)
Since I don't see a reason for two implementations, I think the PEP should
provide a link to the implementation.
No, it shouldn't, as the whole point of these PEPs is to get away from
implementation defined behaviours. If somebody can't implement their
own library from scratch using just the material in the PEP, then the
PEP is incomplete.
I think you are flying to high.
Have you understood what I want?
I just want to add **one** sentence to the PEP:
"This PEP is implemented in ...."
You always have "implementation defined behaviours" since
the PEP is not executable.
Regards,
Thomas Güttler
--
Thomas Guettler http://www.thomas-guettler.de/
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
