Re: [Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information
On 28 June 2018 at 09:11, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Well, with that, I am hereby accepting PEP 561. > > Ethan has done a tremendous job writing this PEP and implementing it, and I > am sure that package and stub authors will be very glad to hear that there > are now officially supported ways other than typeshed to distribute type > annotations. Very cool! Congratulations Ethan! Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information
On 06/27/2018 04:11 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Well, with that, I am hereby accepting PEP 561. Congratulations, Ethan! :) -- ~Ethan~ ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information
Congrats Ethan, Well done! I think PEP 561 will significantly simplify typing third party modules. -- Ivan On 28 June 2018 at 00:11, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Well, with that, I am hereby accepting PEP 561. > > Ethan has done a tremendous job writing this PEP and implementing it, and > I am sure that package and stub authors will be very glad to hear that > there are now officially supported ways other than typeshed to distribute > type annotations. > > Congrats Ethan! > > --Guido > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Guido van Rossum > wrote: > >> 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 wrote: >> >>> On 23 June 2018 at 01:16, Guido van Rossum 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 | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >>> >> >> >> -- >> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) >> > > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) > > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ > levkivskyi%40gmail.com > > ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information
Well, with that, I am hereby accepting PEP 561. Ethan has done a tremendous job writing this PEP and implementing it, and I am sure that package and stub authors will be very glad to hear that there are now officially supported ways other than typeshed to distribute type annotations. Congrats Ethan! --Guido On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Guido van Rossum wrote: > 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 wrote: > >> On 23 June 2018 at 01:16, Guido van Rossum 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 | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >> > > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information
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 wrote: > On 23 June 2018 at 01:16, Guido van Rossum 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 | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information
On 23 June 2018 at 01:16, Guido van Rossum 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 | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information
That sounds like you're supporting PEP 561 as is, right? Excuse my ignorance, but where are API testing stub interfaces described or used? --Guido On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:10 AM Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 21 June 2018 at 07:06, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Only the last two commits are new since the last posting: support for > > partial packages and a bunch of small textual tweaks I found today while > > reviewing. There wasn't a lot of feedback then so I don't expect a > flamewar > > today, but better late than never. ;-) > > Something that was raised indirectly in > https://github.com/pypa/warehouse/issues/4164 was the terminology > collision between type hinting stub files, and API testing stub > interfaces. > > I don't think that's actually a problem, since type hinting stubs will > only contain interface files, and not regular source files. This means > that a type hinting stub could later be expanded in scope to also > become an API emulating testing stub, and the two use cases wouldn't > conflict (I'm not commenting on whether or not that would actually be > a good idea - I'm just noting that PEP 561 claiming the > "-stubs" naming convention on PyPI doesn't close out that > option). > > Beyond that, I think the other points I raised in the Warehouse > tracker issues can be considered derived requirements arising from the > PEP acceptance - if anyone tries to use the window between PEP 561 > being accepted, and the related permissions being enforced in PyPI to > squat on stubs-related project names, then PEP 541 provides a > mechanism for addressing that. > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information
On 21 June 2018 at 07:06, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Only the last two commits are new since the last posting: support for > partial packages and a bunch of small textual tweaks I found today while > reviewing. There wasn't a lot of feedback then so I don't expect a flamewar > today, but better late than never. ;-) Something that was raised indirectly in https://github.com/pypa/warehouse/issues/4164 was the terminology collision between type hinting stub files, and API testing stub interfaces. I don't think that's actually a problem, since type hinting stubs will only contain interface files, and not regular source files. This means that a type hinting stub could later be expanded in scope to also become an API emulating testing stub, and the two use cases wouldn't conflict (I'm not commenting on whether or not that would actually be a good idea - I'm just noting that PEP 561 claiming the "-stubs" naming convention on PyPI doesn't close out that option). Beyond that, I think the other points I raised in the Warehouse tracker issues can be considered derived requirements arising from the PEP acceptance - if anyone tries to use the window between PEP 561 being accepted, and the related permissions being enforced in PyPI to squat on stubs-related project names, then PEP 541 provides a mechanism for addressing that. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Intent to accept PEP 561 -- Distributing and Packaging Type Information
I have reviewed PEP 561 and I intend to accept it some time next week, unless significant discussion happens between now and then. The latest version of the PEP can be found at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0561/ PEP 561 solves a big problem for users of static type checkers like mypy and Pyre (as well as pytype and PyCharm): how to scale the creation of stubs (files with just type annotations, with a .pyi extension). IMO Ethan Smith has done a great job both coming up with and revising the design, and crafting an implementation -- most of PEP 561 is already supported by mypy. It's been a while since a copy of the PEP was posted to python-dev ( https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-April/152694.html), but only a few things changed since then, so I'll just link to the change history: https://github.com/python/peps/commits/master/pep-0561.rst. Only the last two commits are new since the last posting: support for partial packages and a bunch of small textual tweaks I found today while reviewing. There wasn't a lot of feedback then so I don't expect a flamewar today, but better late than never. ;-) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
