[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 10:06 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >What a successor to os.path needs is not security, it's a better (more > pythonic, > >if you like) interface to the old functionality. > > Why? > > I assert that it needs a better[1] interface because the current > interface can lead to a variety of bugs through idiomatic, apparently > correct usage. All the more because many of those bugs are related to > critical errors such as security and data integrity.
AFAICS, people just want an interface that is easier to use and feels more... err... (trying to avoid the p-word). I've never seen security arguments being made in this discussion. > If I felt the current interface did a good job at doing the right thing > in the right situation, but was cumbersome to use, I would strenuously > object to _any_ work taking place to change it. This is a hard API to > get right. Well, it's hard to change any running system with that attitude. It doesn't have to be changed if nobody comes up with something that's agreed (*) to be better. (*) agreed in the c.l.py sense, of course Georg _______________________________________________ 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
