Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

The difference is that an empty list for requires would indicate that building is possible but none would not. Those two values are truthily equivalent. For building, the name returned indicates building was possible, but it's not truthily equivalent to none. On Aug 27, 2017 12:08 AM, "C Anthony

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 11:18 PM, xoviat wrote: > > and they do not appear to receive the source or wheel directories. > > The source directory is the current directory, if I am not mistaken. > Oh right right, for some reason I was reading the `build_*` hooks as receiving the

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 11:05 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 6:30 PM, C Anthony Risinger >> wrote: >> > On Aug 26, 2017 5:13 PM, "Nathaniel

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

> and they do not appear to receive the source or wheel directories. The source directory is the current directory, if I am not mistaken. > This lets `build_*` focus purely on building things straight away. There is a difference between "no more reqs are needed to do X" and "no possible req will

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 6:30 PM, C Anthony Risinger > wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2017 5:13 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 1:47 PM, C Anthony Risinger > >

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 6:30 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > On Aug 26, 2017 5:13 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 1:47 PM, C Anthony Risinger > wrote: > > Sure sure, I understand all that, and why we

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Aug 26, 2017 5:13 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 1:47 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > On Aug 26, 2017 2:17 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: >> >> [removed Guido from CC] >> >> On Aug 26, 2017 02:29, "Paul Moore"

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Aug 26, 2017 5:13 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 1:47 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > On Aug 26, 2017 2:17 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: >> >> [removed Guido from CC] >> >> On Aug 26, 2017 02:29, "Paul Moore"

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

Nathaniel: Just to clarify, we're talking about returning none for the build function not the get requirements function. The get requirements function is always expected to succeed and is optional. If while the backend is discovering requirements it finds that it cannot build, then it can return

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 1:47 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > On Aug 26, 2017 2:17 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: >> >> [removed Guido from CC] >> >> On Aug 26, 2017 02:29, "Paul Moore" wrote: >> >> On 26 August 2017 at 03:17, Guido

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

With respect to this issue, if everyone told me that I was wrong then I would say I'm obviously wrong. But some people are saying one thing and other people are saying something else. On Aug 26, 2017 5:03 PM, "xoviat" wrote: > As I said, I don't care what the particular

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

As I said, I don't care what the particular solution is on this issue. However I'm simply trying to anticipate and resolve potential disagreements that could drag this out for a significant period of time. It is clear that Nick and Donald have a disagreement on this issue which is actually not in

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 2:06 PM, xoviat wrote: > I also think that Guido pretty much ruled out Notimplemented. As I've said, I don't think it matters a huge deal whether we use NotImplemented or not. But please don't treat Guido as some kind of pronouncement generating machine

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

Nathaniel: We're not talking about signaling failure in get_requires* we're talking about signaling failure in build*. On Aug 26, 2017 3:42 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On 26 August 2017 at 20:17,

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

I also think that Guido pretty much ruled out Notimplemented. On Aug 26, 2017 4:04 PM, "xoviat" wrote: > Why does the frontend need to know why an sdist was not created? > > I was of the opinion that such a distinction is not necessary because > building a source distribution

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

Why does the frontend need to know why an sdist was not created? I was of the opinion that such a distinction is not necessary because building a source distribution doesn't take that much time. However Donald thought that there needed to be a distinction because of the wasted time in attempting

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Aug 26, 2017 2:17 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > [removed Guido from CC] > > On Aug 26, 2017 02:29, "Paul Moore" wrote: > > On 26 August 2017 at 03:17, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > In pretty much any other context, if you have an

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 26 August 2017 at 20:17, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> Eh... I would really prefer something that's (a) more explicit about what >> specifically went wrong, and (b) harder to return by accident. It's not at

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On 26 August 2017 at 20:17, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Eh... I would really prefer something that's (a) more explicit about what > specifically went wrong, and (b) harder to return by accident. It's not at > all obvious that if the list of requirements is 'None' that means 'this >

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

The current PEP requires that build_sdist return the basename of the sdist. So forgetting a return statement is not an option unless people really don't read the PEP. On Aug 26, 2017 2:18 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > [removed Guido from CC] > > On Aug 26, 2017 02:29, "Paul

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

[removed Guido from CC] On Aug 26, 2017 02:29, "Paul Moore" wrote: On 26 August 2017 at 03:17, Guido van Rossum wrote: > In pretty much any other context, if you have an operation that returns an > regular value or an error value, the error value should

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

Should probably take Guido out of this email chain now. And does everyone agree with what Nathaniel said on sys.path? On Aug 26, 2017 11:00 AM, "Daniel Holth" wrote: I'm bored with that On Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 11:59 xoviat wrote: > Is everyone on board with

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

I'm bored with that On Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 11:59 xoviat wrote: > Is everyone on board with that? > > On Aug 26, 2017 4:29 AM, "Paul Moore" wrote: > >> On 26 August 2017 at 03:17, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> > In pretty much any other

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

Is everyone on board with that? On Aug 26, 2017 4:29 AM, "Paul Moore" wrote: > On 26 August 2017 at 03:17, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > In pretty much any other context, if you have an operation that returns > an > > regular value or an error value, the

Re: [Distutils] Conditionless setup.py

Me too. YAML is *so much* more widely used, and the complicated edge cases can simply be ignored for this requirement. Maybe it's just because I've never heard of whatever improper behavior the author engaged in, but I don't think a data format needs to answer to the actions of its creator(s). If

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On 26 August 2017 at 03:17, Guido van Rossum wrote: > In pretty much any other context, if you have an operation that returns an > regular value or an error value, the error value should be None. (Exceptions > include e.g. returning a non-negative int or -1 for errors, or True

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 again

On 26 August 2017 at 02:17, xoviat wrote: > The fact that Nick, who I think is > the only core developer here, immediately jumped on this issue confirms my > suspicions here. *ahem* Donald and myself are both core devs too. And possibly others, I honestly don't know. (Not that