I am worried that there’s a chance we miss the forest for the trees when “choosing” between PEP 722/723.
I voiced this in PEP 723: Embedding pyproject.toml in single-file scripts which got split to PEP 723: use a new `[run]` table instead of `[project]`?, but it applies here as well.
I can speak personally, that if I had to choose between these two PEPs I would likely settle on PEP 722, yet it might not be as robust or flexible as a solution that finds a way to embed structured metadata into the script (that isn’t labeled as “pyproject.toml”, as I know you and others have concerns). Then we’re forced to either find a way to “extend” the embedded metadata approach of PEP 722, or invent a new one to replace or live alongside PEP 722 [1] once we want to embed more.
I honestly have the capacity and stamina to co-author a PEP to lay the groundwork taking everything said here (and the other 3 or 4 parallel discussions), but I also know that’s somewhat rude and stressful to you (Paul), Ofek, and Brett. So I’ll just voice my concern, and won’t pursue that unless asked by one of y’all.
Regardless of my concern, I’m personally excited that we’re addressing a gap in support for what I perceive is a decent chunk of Python’s usage. So 
And professionally, I’ll parrot myself from the PEP 723 discussion
Speaking on behalf of Pex and Pantsbuild, we will support whatever decision is accepted, and neither seem technically infeasible.
and then people lob tomatoes and scream fragmentation. ↩︎