Le 06/04/2016 22:47, Sven R. Kunze a écrit : > 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.....
Path objects don't have splitext() or and don't allow "string" / path. Those are the ones bugging me the most. > > > 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/desmoulinmichel%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ 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
