If i had my druthers, this thread would be kept to either:
"Shut up alex, we are really close to figuring this out"
or
"Ok, maybe you have a point."
Every conceivable way to fix pathlib have already been argued. Are any
of them worth doing? Can we get consensus enough to implement one of
them? If not, we should consider either dropping the matter or dropping
the module.
On 4/11/2016 16:48, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
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/tritium-list%40sdamon.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
