On 17 Sep 2013 06:45, "Antoine Pitrou" <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:14:43 -0400 > "R. David Murray" <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:48:54 -0400, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > Any reason why stat() can't get a keyword-only cached=True argument > > > instead? Or have stat() never cache() but stat_cache() always so that > > > people can choose if they want fresh or cached based on API and not whether > > > some library happened to make a decision for them? > > > > Well, we tend to avoid single boolean arguments in favor of differently > > named functions. > > > > But here is an alternate API: expose the state by having a 'cache_stat' > > attribute of the Path that is 'False' by default but can be set 'True'. > > Thanks for the suggestion, that's a possibility too. > > > It could also (or only?) be set via an optional constructor argument. > > That's impractical if you get the Path object from a library call.
Given that this is a behavioural state change, I think asking for a possibly *new* path with caching enabled in that case would be a good way to go. If we treat path objects as effectively immutable (aside from the optional internal stat cache), then checking in __new__ if a passed in path object already has the appropriate caching status and returning it directly if so, but otherwise creating a new path object with the cache setting changed would avoid having libraries potentially alter the behaviour of applications' path objects and vice-versa. In effect, the unique "identity" of a path would be a triple representing the type, the filesystem path and whether or not it cached stat results internally. If you wanted to change any of those, you would have to create a new object. Cheers, Nick. > > 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/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ 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
