> Well, "path" is much too common already, and it's an obvious variable > name for a filesystem path, so "pathlib" is better to avoid name > clashes.
Yep, that makes total sense, thanks. >> However, it seems there was no further discussion about why not >> "extension" and "extensions"? I have never heard a filename extension >> being called a "suffix". I know it is a suffix in the sense of the >> English word, but I've never heard it called that in this context, and >> I think context is important. Put another way, "extension" is obvious >> and guessable, "suffix" isn't. > > Well, perhaps :-), but nobody opposed suffix and suffixes at the time. > Note the API is provisional, so we can still make it change, but > obviously the barrier for changes is higher now that the PEP is > accepted and the beta has been cut. Okay. I won't push hard :-) as "suffix" isn't terrible, but has anyone else never (or rarely) heard the term "suffix" applied to filename extensions? >> 3) Obviously pathlib isn't going in the stdlib in Python 2.x, but I'm >> wondering about writing portable code when you want the string version >> of the path. In Python 3.x you'll call str(path_obj), but in Python >> 2.x that will fail if the path has unicode chars in it, and you'll >> need to use unicode(path_obj), which of course doesn't work 3.x. > > The behaviour of unicode paths in Python 2 is erratic > (system-dependent). pathlib can't really fix it: Python 2 doesn't know > about a well-defined filesystem encoding. Fair enough. >> 4) Is path_obj.glob() recursive? > > This is documented: > http://docs.python.org/dev/library/pathlib.html#pathlib.Path.glob > http://docs.python.org/dev/library/pathlib.html#pathlib.Path.rglob > >> Seems much more Pythonic to provide an actual argument (or different >> function) for this change in behaviour, rather than stuffing the >> "recursive flag" inside the pattern string. > > It's not a flag, it's a different wildcard. This allows e.g. a library > function to call glob() and users to pass a recursive or non-recursive > pattern as they wish. Okay, just saw those docs now -- thanks. Fair enough re "it's a different wildcard". At the least I don't think there should be two ways to do it -- in other words, either rglob() or glob('**'), both seems very un-PEP 20 to me. My preference is rglob(), but glob(recursive=True) would be fine too. >> Has this ship already sailed with http://bugs.python.org/issue13968? > > This issue is still open, so no :-) Same goes for this issue -- there should be OOWTDI, and my preference is rglob() or glob(recursive=True). But maybe issue 13968's behaviour can be determined by pathlib's now that pathlib is the one getting done first. Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ 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
