BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [M.-A. Lemburg]
>> I don't see why this is critical for the success of the Path
>> object. I agree with Thomas that interfaces should be made
>> compatible to Path object.
>
> See the steps I mentioned. Unless step #1 is completed there is no way
> to make the following code work:
>
> open(Path("foobar"))
>
> Well, there is one alternative which is:
>
> open(Path("foobar").tostring())
>
> And that is a Java-esque workaraound that I think noone would be happy
> with.
Now maybe I'm missing context here but: what on earth are you talking
about? Of course there's a way to make "open(Path("foobar"))" work --
you change how the builtin open() works.
This post is not intended as arguing for or against anything, except
technical accuracy.
Cheers,
mwh
--
Richard Gabriel was wrong: worse is not better, lying is better.
Languages and systems succeed in the marketplace to the extent that
their proponents lie about what they can do.
-- Tim Bradshaw, comp.lang.lisp
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
