PEP 685: Minor wording changes #2448
Conversation
CAM-Gerlach
changed the title
|
For clarity, these changes were discussed on PEP's discussion thread. |
| @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ via:: | |||
| re.sub(r'[^A-Za-z0-9-.]+', '_', name).lower() | |||
|
|
|||
| The use of an underscore/``_`` differs from PEP 503's use of a hyphen/``-``, | |||
| and it also normalizes characters outside of those allowed by :pep`508`. | |||
| and it also normalizes characters outside of those allowed by :pep:`508`. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, I didn't catch this; surprised it didn't result in a Sphinx-level syntax error. I could have the linters check for cases like this, but I'm not sure if its common or general enough to justify.
| Tools SHOULD warn users when an invalid extra name is read and SHOULD ignore | ||
| the name to avoid ambiguity. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Tools SHOULD warn users when an invalid extra name is read and SHOULD ignore | |
| the name to avoid ambiguity. | |
| Tools SHOULD warn users when an invalid extra name is read and SHOULD ignore | |
| the extra to avoid ambiguity. |
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but for clarity's sake, wouldn't it be the extra that is ignored, (i.e. not installed), not just the name used for it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see there's a significant difference, but I'm not sufficiently bothered that I'll argue either way. Both "extra" and "name" clearly (IMO) refer back to the term "extra name".
Note that this sentence doesn't necessarily refer to installers - the tool might be an analysis utility that's reporting what extras are present in a set of projects, for example.
No description provided.