On 10 April 2016 at 15:07, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: > If there's some agreement to change things with respect to those 5 points, I > am willing to put some time into it.
In broad terms I agree with these points. Thanks for doing the research. It would certainly be good to try to improve pathlib based on this sort of feedback while it is still provisional. One specific point - you say: """ Path.rglob(pattern) Walk down a given path; a wrapper for "os.scandir"/"os.listdir". """ However, at least in 3.5, Path.rglob does *not* wrap scandir. There's a difference in principle, in that scandir (DirEntry) objects cache stat data, where pathlib does not. Whether that makes using scandir in Path.rglob impossible, I don't know. Ideally I'd like to see pathlib modified to use scandir (because otherwise there will always be people saying "use os.walk rather than scandir, as it's faster) - or if it's not possible to do so because of the difference in principle, then I'd like to see a clear discussion of the issue in the docs, including the recommended approach for people who want scandir performance *without* having to abandon pathlib for lower level functions. Paul _______________________________________________ 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
