On 06.04.2016 07:00, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
[...] we can't do:
app_root = Path(...)
config = app_root/'settings.cfg'
with open(config) as blah:
# whatever
It feels like instead of addressing this basic disconnect, the answer has
instead been: add that to pathlib! Which works great -- until a user or a
library gets this path object and tries to use something from os on it.
I agree that asking for config.open() isn't the right answer here
(even if it happens to work).
How come?
But in this example, once 3.5.2 is out,
the solution would be to use open(config.path), and that will also
work when passing it to a library. Is it still unacceptable then?
I think so. Although in this example I would prefer the shorter
config.open alternative as I am lazy.
I still cannot remember what the concrete issue was why we dropped
pathlib the same day we gave it a try. It was something really stupid
and although I hoped to reduce the size of the code, it was less
readable. But it was not the path->str issue but something more mundane.
It was something that forced us to use os[.path] as Path didn't provide
something equivalent. Cannot remember.....
Best,
Sven
_______________________________________________
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
