On Mon, Apr 11, 2016, at 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'm not so sure. Is there any particular reason os.path.join should
require its arguments to be homogenous, rather than allowing
os.path.join('a', b'b', Path('c')) to return 'a/b/c'?
> 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"*.
The problem isn't you using os. It's you using other modules that use
os. or io, shutil, or builtins.open. Or pathlib, if what *you're* using
is some other path library. Are you content living in a walled garden
where there is only your code and pathlib, and you never might want to
pass a Path to some function someone else (who didn't use pathlib)
wrote?
os is being used as an example because fixing os probably gets you most
other things (that just pass it through to builtins.open which passes it
through to os.open) for free.
_______________________________________________
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
