This loosens the statements about builds and configure needing to
Break and instead changes this to a mere build/configure time warning.
This is in line with how we treat platforms that are not on a support
Tier (of which there are many). Doing anything else would basically
be unreasonable punshiment for anything in our support Tiers that then
loses its official PEP-11 support for whatever reason.
Discussed in https://discuss.python.org/t/proposed-update-to-pep-11-on-unsupporting-a-platform-less-draconian-measures/44065.
Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com>
- Minor corrections / typo fixes
- Use a ref role for `use_cases` link. As currently written, it
renders incorrectly to a relative link to a `use_cases` page.
- Fix header style for Use Cases Appendix
- Add an explicit Compatibility section to Rationale
Future compatibility and designing the Dependency Groups data to be
extensible is a particular area of concern within the PEP. Although it
is addressed to some degree in the Specification, this small note in
the Rationale clarifies that compatibility with spec extensions is a
---------
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
As announced in https://discuss.python.org/t/43534,
I'm stepping down as the contact for powerpc64le.
This demotes the platform to Tier 3 (which is the right
place for it, IMO).
- Remove the PEP 723 use-case
- Change to non-normalized names which require normalization
- Update the reference implementation to normalize
- Clarify the meaning of an Include
- Forbid cycles in includes
- Add a section on validation and compatibility which clearly defines
future-compatible behavior
- Remove 'include list' from open issues
- Add 'includes of `[project]` tables' to open issues
Added the note from SC regarding expanding
the scope to include docstrings in the
standard library.
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
* PEP 726: Fix error message description
Zero is a non-negative number, but since zero is being excluded here, the
check is really ensuring that it is a positive number.
* s/overriden/overridden/
---------
Co-authored-by: Łukasz Langa <lukasz@langa.pl>
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
The passage in the PEP misleads its readers into believing, that
unpacking in comprehensions is supported. This is not the case, as
presented by the abstract itself:
> This PEP does not include unpacking operators inside list, set and
> dictionary comprehensions although this has not been ruled out for
> future proposals.
(Historically, the PEP originally did propose this, but that part of
the PEP was rejected, and the abstract wasn't completely updated.)
Hugo van Kemenade
Ethan Furman
Mark Shannon
Rebecca Chen
Jelle Zijlstra
Gregory P. Smith
James Hilton-Balfe
William Woodruff
Stephen Rosen
Filipe Laíns
Petr Viktorin
Victor Stinner
T. Wouters
Malcolm Smith
Steve Dower
Brett Cannon
Joshua Bambrick
Mariatta
Paul Moore
Hugo van Kemenade
Eric Snow
Aliaksei Urbanski
Jean K
Ee Durbin
Chris Angelico
Sebastián Ramírez
John T. Wodder II
Blazej Michalik