On 11.04.2016 22:33, Alexander Walters wrote:
If there is headway being made, I do not see it.
Funny that you brought it up. I was about posting something myself. I
cannot agree completely. But starting with a comment from Paul, I
realized that pathlib is something different than a string. After doing
the research and our issues with pathlib, I found:
- pathlib just needs to be improved (see my 5 points)
- os[.path] should not tinkered with
I know that all of those discussions of a new protocol (path->str,
__fspath__ etc. etc.) might be rendered worthless by these two
statements. But that's my conclusion.
"os" and "os.path" are just lower level. "pathlib" is a high-level,
convenience library. When using it, I don't want to use "os" or
"os.path" anymore. If I still do, "pathlib" needs improving. *Not "os"
nor "os.path"*.
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
