4 ms·

It's interesting to note that PEP 582 (i.e. pypackages) mode used to be the PDM default -- and was sort of its flagship feature -- before being made opt-in

It's interesting to note that PEP 582 (i.e. __pypackages__) mode used to be the PDM default -- and was sort of its flagship feature -- before being made opt-in with 2.0 release, the explanation being that the PEP had stalled, and that editor and IDE support for virtualenvs is much better (https://www.pythonbynight.com/blog/using-pdm-for-your-next-python https://www.pythonbynight.com/blog/using-pdm-for-your-next-p...). If you read through the discussion on the Python forum, one of the counterarguments to the PEP is that "If existing tools can already support this, why do we need a PEP for it?" But presumedly a PEP would help push the ecosystem to accommodate __pypackages__, and to solve the aforementioned problems (like broader editor and IDE support). For what it's worth (as someone that builds Python tooling full-time): I'm generally a fan of moving to a node_modules-like model.

charliermarsh 4y ago
Oh, also, I think I've read the entire Discussions thread on this PEP, and from what I can tell, the PEP is missing champions who are eager to push it forward. Part of the problem, I'm guessing, is that the PEP kind of sits in a weird space, because it's not up to the PyPA to "approve" it, or whatever -- PEPs are approved by the Python Steering Council. Per Brett Cannon (Steering Council Member): > Either consensus has to be reached (which it hasn’t) and/or someone needs to send this to the SC to make a decision (although it is a weird PEP in that it also impacts packaging, so it isn’t even clear who would get final say). https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-582-python-local-packages-directory/963/239 https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-582-python-local-packages-d...
Kwpolska 4y ago
That tooling argument is quite weak. PDM is the only tool I was able to find that has support for __pypackages__, the paths it uses seem to be slightly different to the PEP wording, and it uses a $PYTHONPATH/shell hack (`pdm --pep582` adds a folder with `sitecustomize.py` that does the magic). How do you change the $PYTHONPATH used by an IDE (and its magic features)?
- charliermarsh 4y ago
  I agree!

It's interesting to note that PEP 582 (i.e. __pypackages__) mode used to be the PDM default -- and was sort of its flagship feature -- before being made opt-in

charliermarsh 4y ago

Oh, also, I think I've read the entire Discussions thread on this PEP, and from what I can tell, the PEP is missing champions who are eager to push it forward. Part of the problem, I'm guessing, is that the PEP kind of sits in a weird space, because it's not up to the PyPA to "approve" it, or whatever -- PEPs are approved by the Python Steering Council. Per Brett Cannon (Steering Council Member): > Either consensus has to be reached (which it hasn’t) and/or someone needs to send this to the SC to make a decision (although it is a weird PEP in that it also impacts packaging, so it isn’t even clear who would get final say). https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-582-python-local-packages-directory/963/239 https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-582-python-local-packages-d...

Kwpolska 4y ago

That tooling argument is quite weak. PDM is the only tool I was able to find that has support for __pypackages__, the paths it uses seem to be slightly different to the PEP wording, and it uses a $PYTHONPATH/shell hack (`pdm --pep582` adds a folder with `sitecustomize.py` that does the magic). How do you change the $PYTHONPATH used by an IDE (and its magic features)?

charliermarsh 4y ago
I agree!