Name for PEP 723 style dependency declarations

This is in the same spirit as Name for pyproject.toml builds and PEPs

PEP 723 is provisionally accepted but it does not have a clear user-facing name that we can use to communicate about the core mechanism.

IMO we should have a specific suggestion for what to call this style of dependency specification, in conversation and documentation, ideally avoiding the need to state “PEP 723” or “pyproject.toml” when describing this style of dependency declaration.

What should that name be?

/cc @ofek @brettcannon @pf_moore for their thoughts.


Personally, I would refer to it as “Script dependency data”.

1 Like

I would opt for “runtime requirements” which would translate well to the run table when embedded in a project’s pyproject.toml.

1 Like

“Inline script metadata”?


Why is it bad to state “pyproject.toml”? I thought that the acceptance was provisional on a [run] table being added to pyproject.toml, and indeed that part of the rationale for the acceptance was that it would make things more coherent because the same information is in the script or in pyproject.toml.

So I think calling it “inline dependencies” or “in-script dependencies” is fine, and where convenient the documentation can also say something like “inline dependencies (in the same way they would be specified in pyproject.toml”. (And include a link to the documentation of pyproject.toml!)


No one said it’s “bad”.

The reasons for avoiding it are primarily-opinion-based so I’m not gonna spend time trying to convince anyone here. IMO it comes down to avoiding user confusion. The information that you can specify in the script is not equivalent to what you can with the pyproject.toml file[1]. It is, definitionally, a strict subset. Using a reference to pyproject.toml can be misleading in that sense because it’s not “pyproject.toml in the script”, but rather a bit of (eventually-hopefully) shared support with the same schema being permitted across both TOML documents with hopefully similar semantics.

  1. It doesn’t need to be. ↩︎


Going off the likes on the discussion here in the last few hours, looks like this is the “name” that people are leaning towards the most.

@ofek Would you be OK with this and, if so, would you be willing to update the PEP title to reflect this naming?


Sure! Am I allowed to do that?

If that’s a PEP process question, then yes. File the PR and ask for Brett’s approval on it, since he’s the only one who hasn’t opined here. :sweat_smile:

1 Like