On 21 August 2014 09:33, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > On 08/20/2014 03:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On 21 Aug 2014 08:19, "Greg Ewing" <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz >> <mailto:greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I think if you want low-level features (such as unconverted bytes paths >>>> under POSIX), it is reasonable to point you to low-level APIs. >>> >>> >>> >>> The problem with scandir() in particular is that there is >>> currently *no* low-level API exposed that gives the same >>> functionality. >>> >>> If scandir() is not to support bytes paths, I'd suggest >>> exposing the opendir() and readdir() system calls with >>> bytes path support. >> >> >> scandir is low level (the entire os module is low level). In fact, aside >> from pathlib, I'd consider pretty much every >> API we have that deals with paths to be low level - that's a large part of >> the reason we needed pathlib! > > > If scandir is low-level, and the low-level API's are the ones that should > support bytes paths, then scandir should support bytes paths. > > Is that what you meant to say?
Yes. The discussions around PEP 471 *deferred* discussions of bytes and file descriptor support to their own RFEs (not needing a PEP), they didn't decide definitively not to support them. So Serhiy's thread is entirely pertinent to that question. Note that adding bytes support still *should not* hold up the initial PEP 471 implementation - it should be done as a follow on RFE. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
