[Ian Bicking] >Losing .open() would make it much harder for anyone wanting to write, >say, a URI library that implements the Path API.
[John] > Why? Could you expand a bit? > > What's wrong with urlopen(filesystem_path_instance) ? [Ian] > def read_config(path): > text = path.open().read() > ... do something ... I should have expected that answer, but couldn't believe that you think it's a good idea to implement that obese filesystem path API for URLs ;-) Shouldn't we instead have: a) .open()-able objects blessed in the stdlib & stdlib docs, as a separate interface from the path interface (I guess that would be an argument in favour of path implementing that one-method interface, as long as it's not tied too tightly to the fat path interface) b) a path object with a thinner interface (I know you've already expressed that preference yourself...)? John _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
