On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:06:37 +0200 Charles-François Natali <cf.nat...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/9/16 Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>: > > Le Sun, 15 Sep 2013 06:46:08 -0700, > > Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> a écrit : > >> I see PEP 428 is both targeted at 3.4 and still in draft status. > >> > >> What remains to be done to ask for pronouncement? > > > > I think I have a couple of items left to integrate in the PEP. > > Mostly it needs me to take a bit of time and finalize the PEP, and > > then have a PEP delegate (or Guido) pronounce on it. > > IIRC, during the last discussion round, we were still debating between > implicit stat() result caching - which requires an explicit restat() > method - vs a mapping between the stat() method and a stat() syscall. > > What was the conclusion?
No definite conclusion. You and Nick liked the idea of a rich stat object (returned by os.stat()) with is_dir() methods and the like: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-May/125809.html However, nothing was done about that since then ;-) There was also the scandir() proposal to return rich objects with optional stat-like fields, but similarly it didn't get a conclusion: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-May/126119.html So I would like to propose the following API change: - Path.stat() (and stat-accessing methods such as get_mtime()...) returns an uncached stat object by default - Path.cache_stat() can be called to return the stat() *and* cache it for future use, such that any future call to stat(), cache_stat() or a stat-accessing function reuses that cached stat In other words, only if you use cache_stat() at least once is the stat() value cached and reused by the Path object. (also, it's a per-Path decision) Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
