Shouldn't that paragraph be added to the PEP (e.g. under a "Status" subheading)?
enjoying-top-posting-ly, Georg Guido van Rossum wrote: > I would recommend not using it. IMO it's an amalgam of unrelated > functionality (much like the Java equivalent BTW) and the existing os > and os.path modules work just fine. Those who disagree with me haven't > done a very good job of convincing me, so I expect this PEP to remain > in limbo indefinitely, until it is eventually withdrawn or rejected. > > --Guido > > On 9/29/06, Luis P Caamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What's the status of PEP 355, Path - Object oriented filesystem paths? >> >> We'd like to start using the current reference implementation but we'd >> like to do it in a manner that minimizes any changes needed when Path >> becomes part of stdlib. >> >> In particular, the reference implementation in >> http://wiki.python.org/moin/PathModule names the class 'path' instead >> of 'Path', which seems like a source of name conflict problems. >> >> How would you recommend one starts using it now, as is or renaming >> class path to Path? >> >> Thanks >> >> -- >> Luis P Caamano >> Atlanta, GA USA >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/guido%40python.org >> > > _______________________________________________ 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
