> I think we should think hard and deep about all the consequences. I was > initially in favor of stat caching, but during offline review of PEP 428 > Nick pointed out that there are too many different ways to do stat caching, > and convinced me that it would be wrong to rush it. Now that beta 1 is out I > really don't want to reconsider this -- we really need to stick to the plan.
Fair call, and thanks for the response. > The ship has likewise sailed for adding scandir() (whether to os or > pathlib). By all means experiment and get it ready for consideration for > 3.5, but I don't want to add it to 3.4. Yes, I was definitely thinking about 3.5 at this stage. :-) What would be the next step for getting something like os.scandir() added for 3.5 -- a PEP referencing the various issues? > In general I think there are some tough choices regarding stat caching. You > already brought up stat vs. lstat -- there's also the issue of what to do if > [l]stat fails -- do we cache the exception? > > IMO, the current incarnation is for convenience, correctness and > cross-platform semantics -- three C's. The next incarnation can add a fourth > C, caching. Three/four C's, I like it! -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
