PEP 722: Dependency specification for single-file scripts #3210
Conversation
hugovk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This also needs adding to https://github.com/python/peps/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS.
|
Just a quick note - thanks for the reviews, I'll address them once the first round of discussion on the PEP has died down a bit, as I expect there to be further changes coming from that. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
|
OK, this has been updated following review comments here and discussion on Discourse. I plan on merging this so we have an "official" copy of the PEP under discussion, but I'll leave the merge for a little while in case anyone has a chance to review for typos, or similar, as it's a pretty major rewrite. |
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
AA-Turner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll apply the two syntax changes such that the document renders properly. Otherwise, one question and some editorial suggestions.
A
Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+AA-Turner@users.noreply.github.com>
| the identifying characters ``##``. Whitespace is not allowed before the | ||
| identifying ``##``. More than one metadata block may exist in a Python file. | ||
|
|
||
| Tools reading dependency blocks MAY respect the standard Python encoding |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At this point of the "Specification" section we have only talked about metadata blocks, and script dependencies have not been introduced yet. So maybe it should read "Tools reading metadata blocks [...]" instead?
@python/pep-editors - I've grabbed the next PEP number (722) that seemed available. Hope that's OK, I can change the number if needed.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--3210.org.readthedocs.build/