Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-14 Thread Ethan Smith
A note was added [1] about the solution for module only distributions and is live on Python.org. [1] https://github.com/python/peps/pull/468 Ethan Smith On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Sebastian Rittau wrote: > Am 14.11.2017 um 02:38 schrieb Guido van Rossum: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:50

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-14 Thread Sebastian Rittau
Am 14.11.2017 um 02:38 schrieb Guido van Rossum: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Rittau > wrote: I am really looking forward to the implementation of this PEP and I am glad that it is close to acceptance. One thing that is not really clear to me

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-13 Thread Ethan Smith
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Rittau wrote: > Hello everyone, > > > Am 14.11.2017 um 00:29 schrieb Guido van Rossum: > >> This is a nice piece of work. I expect to accept it pretty much verbatim >> (with some small edits, see https://github.com/python/peps/pull/467). I >> agree with

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-13 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Rittau wrote: > Am 14.11.2017 um 00:29 schrieb Guido van Rossum: > >> This is a nice piece of work. I expect to accept it pretty much verbatim >> (with some small edits, see https://github.com/python/peps/pull/467). I >> agree with Nick that we don't hav

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-13 Thread Sebastian Rittau
Hello everyone, Am 14.11.2017 um 00:29 schrieb Guido van Rossum: This is a nice piece of work. I expect to accept it pretty much verbatim (with some small edits, see https://github.com/python/peps/pull/467). I agree with Nick that we don't have to do anything specifically about control of foo

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-13 Thread Guido van Rossum
Hi Ethan! This is a nice piece of work. I expect to accept it pretty much verbatim (with some small edits, see https://github.com/python/peps/pull/467). I agree with Nick that we don't have to do anything specifically about control of foo_stubs packages -- nor do I think we need to worry about foo

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-13 Thread Ivan Levkivskyi
Thanks Ethan for all the work! I will be glad to see this accepted and implemented in mypy. -- Ivan ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/optio

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-13 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 13 November 2017 at 17:33, Ethan Smith wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> PyPI doesn't distinguish between the names 'foo-stubs' and 'foo_stubs' >> -- they get normalized together. So even if you use 'foo-stubs' as the >> directory name on sys.path to avoid col

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-12 Thread Ethan Smith
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Ethan Smith wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Jelle Zijlstra < > jelle.zijls...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> 2017-11-12 3:40 GMT-08:00 Ethan Smith : > >>> The name of the stub > >>> p

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-12 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Ethan Smith wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Jelle Zijlstra > wrote: >> >> 2017-11-12 3:40 GMT-08:00 Ethan Smith : >>> The name of the stub >>> package >>> MUST follow the scheme ``pkg_stubs`` for type stubs for the package named >>> ``pkg``. The nor

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-12 Thread Ethan Smith
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Jelle Zijlstra wrote: > > > 2017-11-12 3:40 GMT-08:00 Ethan Smith : > >> Hello, >> >> I re-wrote my PEP to have typing opt-in be per-package rather than >> per-distribution. This greatly simplifies things, and thanks to the >> feedback and suggestions of Nick Cogh

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-12 Thread Jelle Zijlstra
2017-11-12 3:40 GMT-08:00 Ethan Smith : > Hello, > > I re-wrote my PEP to have typing opt-in be per-package rather than > per-distribution. This greatly simplifies things, and thanks to the > feedback and suggestions of Nick Coghlan, it is entirely compatible with > older packaging tooling. > > Th

[Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework

2017-11-12 Thread Ethan Smith
Hello, I re-wrote my PEP to have typing opt-in be per-package rather than per-distribution. This greatly simplifies things, and thanks to the feedback and suggestions of Nick Coghlan, it is entirely compatible with older packaging tooling. The main idea is there are two types of packages: - type