[Catalog-sig] Finalising PEP-345 - Requires-Python

david.lyon at preisshare.net david.lyon at preisshare.net
Thu Dec 31 14:31:18 CET 2009

Hi Noah,

> Also while the metadata should really have Only One Representation, it
> isn't directly user facing. A packing index could easily display it in a
> different way (icons?) and a packager could accept more than one input
> syntax.

Actually, if it was forward facing to users then I don't think
it would matter so much. If the field was just displayed, it
would be very simple.

In this case, one actually expects the section in question to
be processed programmatically and checked against the internal
python version.

So it is therefore more important to have it consistent with
other sections so that there is code reuse. Having one particular
section inconsistent with all other sections (and requiring
special parsing) is a way to introduce errors right through
the tool chain, and I know for sure that nobody intended that.

A good reliable system is where things don't get too quirky
and there is consistency. Especially within the one file.

I'm sure everyone wants this pep finished. That's why I'm
checking it now so that we can get it done and good to go.


More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list