[Distutils] PEP 517 again
xoviat at gmail.com
Wed Aug 30 19:29:41 EDT 2017
So while I was working on pip, I noticed a parameter called 'autobuilding'
in wheel.py. What this does (I think) is that if pip decides that it needs
to be enabled (which is an implementation detail not relevant here), it
adds the following to the "setup.py bdist_wheel" call:
This switches the output of the bdist_wheel filename to include something
like "cp36" rather than "py36," which indicates the Python implementation.
The question is this: this behavior isn't captured (I think) in the
build_wheel function, possibly (probably) for good reason. So that means
once everything goes through the PEP 517 protocol, pip will not be able to
let setuptools know about this information. Which means that we need to
Should the PEP 517 backend for setuptools assume "cp36" in python_tag
Should the PEP 517 backend for setuptools assume "py36" in python_tag
2017-08-29 18:51 GMT-05:00 Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:30 PM, xoviat <xoviat at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> For me, using NotImplemented is a misuse of the singleton since I know
> >> what it's meant to be used for (and so I cringe every time I hear it
> >> up as a solution).
> > I hate to reiterate too much, but I think that you are correct here:
> > NotImplemented is not Pythonic. It's a complete hack that I would think
> > people would like to quarantine to the limited use case of binary
> > operations. Even with the poorly contextualized email that Guido
> received, I
> > think it was clear that he thought it wasn't appropriate outside of that
> > case either (I don't think better context would have changed that).
> > Personally, I was willing to overlook that for the sake of a speedy
> > resolution. But reading the email chain, it seems that only Thomas and
> > Daniel are currently in favor of using NotImplemented, which is a shift
> > the earlier situation. So now it seems that NotImplemented is not likely
> > be used.
> Just for the record, I thought Nathaniel's NotImplemented suggestion
> was a good one, and his explanation of why, was clear and convincing,
> but he's already accepted the alternative, of a custom error, so I
> don't think there's much point on going back over that.
> Also just for the record, I'd like to warmly thank y'all for your
> great patience in this long discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG