On 04/11/2016 02:58 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Sticking points:
---------------
Do we allow bytes to be returned from os.fspath()? If yes, then do we
allow bytes from __fspath__()?
On 04/11/2016 10:28 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> In text applications, "bytes as carcinogen" is an apt metaphor.
On 04/12/2016 08:25 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I would say No and No, on the basis that it's *far* easier to widen
> their scope in 3.7 than to narrow it.
On 04/11/2016 08:45 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 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.
[...]
One possible way to address this concern would be to have the
underlying protocol be bytes/str (since boundary code frequently needs
to handle the paths-are-bytes assumption in POSIX), but offer an
"os.fspathname" API that rejected bytes output from os.fspath.
I think this is the way forward: offer a standard way to get
paths-as-strings, with an easily supported way of working with
paths-as-bytes.
This could be with on os.fspathname() & os.fspath() pair of functions,
or with a single function that has a parameter specifying what to do
with bytes objects: reject (default), accept, or (maybe) an encoding to
use to coerce to bytes.
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
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
