On 04/14/2016 06:56 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
2016-04-14 15:40 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan:
>> Even earlier, Victor Stinner wrote:
I consider that the final goal of the whole discussion is to support something like: path = os.path.join(pathlib_path, "str_path", direntry)That's not a *new* problem though, it already exists if you pass in a mix of bytes and str: (...) There's also already a solution (regardless of whether you want bytes or str as the result), which is to explicitly coerce all the arguments to the same type: --> os.path.join(*map(os.fsdecode, ("str", b"bytes"))) (...)I don't understand. What is the point of adding a new __fspath__ protocol to *implicitly* convert path objects to strings, if you still have to use an explicit conversion?
That's the crux of the issue -- some of us think the job of __fspath__ is to simply retrieve the inherent data from the pathy object, *not* to do any implicit conversions.
I would really expect that a high-level API like pathlib would solve encodings issues for me. IMHO DirEntry entries created by os.scandir(bytes) must use os.fsdecode() in their __fspath__ method.
Then let pathlib do it. As a high-level interface I have no issue with pathlib converting DirEntry bytes objects to str using fsdecode (or whatever makes sense); os.path.join (and by extension os.fspath and __fspath__) should do no such thing.
os.path.join(*map(os.fsdecode, ("str", b"bytes")))This code is quite complex for a newbie, don't you think so?
A newbie should be using pathlib. If pathlib is not low-level enough, then the newbie needs to learn about low-level stuff.
-- ~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
