On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 at 09:19 Fred Drake <f...@fdrake.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> > - a single os.fspath() with an allow_bytes parameter
> > (mostly True in os and os.path, mostly False everywhere
> > else)
>
> -0
>
> > - a str-only os.fspathname() and a str/bytes os.fspath()
>
> +1 on using separate functions.
>
> > I'm partial to the first choice as it is simplicity itself to know when
> > looking at it if bytes might be coming back by the presence or absence
> of a
> > second argument to the call; otherwise one has to keep straight in one's
> > head which is str-only and which might allow bytes (I'm not very good at
> > keeping similar sounding functions separate -- what's the difference
> between
> > shutil.copy and shutil.copy2? I have to look it up every time).
>
> I do the same, but... this is one of those cases where a caller will
> usually be passing a constant directly. If passed as a positional
> argument, it'll just be confusing ("what's True?" is my usual reaction
> to a Boolean positional argument).
It would be keyword-only so this isn't even a possibility.
> If passed as a keyword argument
> with a descriptive name, it'll be longer than I'd like to see:
>
> path_str = os.fspath(path, allow_bytes=True)
>
I think the expectation that the number of people actually directly calling
this function with that argument specified is going to be rather small, so
the common-case will simply be:
path_str = os.fspath(path)
>
> Names like os.fspath() and os.fssyspath() seem good to me.
>
-Brett
_______________________________________________
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
