On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Koos Zevenhoven <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Koos Zevenhoven <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Ethan Furman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 05/11/2016 03:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> >>>> If [...] I would drop os.path changes and make os.fspath() do what >>> >>>> Ethan and Koos have suggested and simply pass through without checks >>>> >>>> whatever path.__fspath__() returned if the argument wasn't str or bytes. >>> >>> >>> Not to derail the conversation too much, as I know we're all getting burned >>> out on the topic, but that last bit is not accurate: my druthers are to have >>> __fspath__ be able to return str /or/ bytes, and if anything else comes from >>> the object in question an exception must be raised. Maybe a word got lost >>> between your thoughts and your fingers -- happens to me all the time. :) >> >> Yes. This would also be equivalent to my fspath(path, >> type_constraint=(str,bytes)). And if the compromise I mentioned about >> the rejecting (by default or optionally) is lifted, the keyword > > the rejecting -> rejecting bytes > >> argument would not be needed. I might be ok with throwing away the >> isinstance check on the return value of __fspath__() if it has >> significant impact on performance in realistic cases (with DirEntry >> most likely, I suppose), but I doubt it. >> >> -- Koos >>
I will send a pull request about this tomorrow. -- Koos >>> >>> -- >>> ~Ethan~ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Python-Dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev >>> Unsubscribe: >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/k7hoven%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
