> I asked privately Guido van Rossum if I can be the BDFL-delegate for > the PEP 471 and he agreed. I accept the latest version of the PEP: > > http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0471/
Thank you! > The PEP also explicitly mentions that os.walk() will be modified to > benefit of the new os.scandir() function. Yes, this was a good suggestion to include that explicitly -- in actual fact, speeding up os.walk() was my main goal initially. > The PEP is accepted. Superb. Could you please update the PEP with the Resolution and BDFL-Delegate fields? > It's time to review the implementation ;-) The current code can be found at: > > https://github.com/benhoyt/scandir > > (I don't think that Ben already updated his implementation for the > latest version of the PEP.) I have actually updated my GitHub repo for the current PEP (did this last Saturday). However, there are still a few open issues, the main one is that my scandir.py module doesn't handle the bytes/str thing properly. I intend to work on the CPython implementation over the next few weeks. However, a couple of thoughts up-front: I think if I were doing this from scratch I'd reimplement listdir() in Python as "return [e.name for e in scandir(path)]". However, I'm not sure this is a good idea, as I don't really want listdir() to suddenly use more memory and perform slightly *worse* due to the extra DirEntry object allocations. So my basic plan is to have an internal helper function in posixmodule.c that either yields DirEntry objects or strings. And then listdir() would simply be defined something like "return list(_scandir(path, yield_strings=True))" in C or in Python. My reasoning is that then there'll be much less (if any) code duplication between scandir() and listdir(). Does this sound like a reasonable approach? -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
