PEP 723: use a new `[run]` table instead of `[project]`?

[ofek (Ofek Lev)]

@pf_moore

Is that what you intend?

I am in agreement if the initial version also defines support for requires-python.

@sirosen

# ```pyproject.toml
# [run]
# ...
# ```

Might not feel okay to everyone. The tentative proposal here is that the contents are a TOML block with a [run] key which has been setup to line up with a later expansion of pyproject.toml, but doesn’t match the currently specced contents of that file.
So calling it “pyproject.toml data” is false today but hopefully true tomorrow.

Before this soaks up a bunch of people’s time writing a shared proposal, is that okay? Is there a better option?

I understand folks seem to be coalescing on a comment, however I feel the need to say I spoke to one of the people that I mentioned in the PEP over the weekend who is already using the variable approach and while their response in support of that is rather lengthy I can post an exerpt:

[…] My first serious iteration, then, was having the module docstring look like this:

"""pyproject.toml
[project]
...
"""

…which pleasantly looks like a code fence. And I thought, you could also allow it as a top-level string literal immediately following the module docstring. But in the end, even though I still think this variant looks nicest, I went with __pyproject__ because it seemed more explicit and unambiguous.

I actually really like that idea.