On Sun, Jun 24, 2018, at 7:19 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > What do you think? (Thomas, I'd love your thoughts in particular :-).)
I agree that it looks nicer, but I'm not sure that it's worth the added complexity: is 'flit' equivalent to 'flit.__build_api__' (i.e. from flit import __build_api__), or to 'flit:__build_api__' (import flit and get an attribute called __build_api__)? For Flit, I treat the buildsystem table as boilerplate, and 'flit init' inserts it automatically. So the extra word in 'flit.buildapi' is a very minor inconvenience. There's also an argument that the explicit 'flit.builapi' is preferable for understanding it: most packaging tools will use the name 'build' in various places, so it's not necessarily obvious that __build_api__ is what's exposed to the frontend. But that could largely be solved by docs and comments. So I'm -0, but I'm probably biased: I would need to update various bits of code and docs if we changed it (flit, intreehooks, the pep517 module). I agree that if we do want to make changes like this, it's still feasible to do so at the moment. Thomas -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/5GPJR2PMMPRFBBOZ46DQIRM4VPHZ2RMV/
