On 12 April 2016 at 07:58, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > Sticking points: > --------------- > > Do we allow bytes to be returned from os.fspath()? If yes, then do we allow > bytes from __fspath__()?
I've come around to the point of view that allowing both str and bytes-like objects to pass through unchanged makes sense, with the rationale being the one someone mentioned regarding ease-of-use in os.path. Consider os.path.join: with a permissive os.fspath, the necessary update should just be to introduce "map(os.fspath, args)" (or its C equivalent), and then continue with the existing bytes vs str handling logic. Functions consuming os.fspath can then decide on a case-by-case basis how they want to handle binary paths: either use them as is (which will usually work on mostly-ASCII systems), convert them to text with os.fsdecode (which will usually work on *nix systems), or disallow them entirely (which would probably only be appropriate for libraries that wanted to ensure support for non-ASCII paths on Windows systems). That then cascades into the other open questions mentioned: - permitted return types for both fspath and __fspath__ would be (str, bytes) - the names would be fspath and __fspath__, since the result may be either a path name as text, or an encoded path name as bytes Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
