On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Sjoerd Job Postmus <sjoerd...@sjoerdjob.com> wrote: > I would like to make just 1 comment regarding the question of accepting > (or not) bytes as output of `os.fspath`. > > The whole point of adding `os.fspath` is to make it easier to use Path > objects. This is in an effort to gain greater adoption of pathlib in > libraries. Now, this is an excellent idea. > > However, if it were to reject bytes, that would mean that when libraries > start to use pathlib, it would suddenly become harder for people that > actually need bytes-support to use pathlib. > > Now, the claim 'if you need bytes, you should not be using pathlib` is a > reasonable one. But what if I need bytes *and* a specific library (say, > image handling, or a web framework, or ...). It's not up to me if that > library uses pathlib or plain old os.path.join. > > Is using surrogate-escapes enough for this case? I myself am not sure, > (and also not affected), but it sounds to me that rejecting bytes is a > wrong approach if there is no proper workaround (assuming the use-case > of pathlib is somewhere deep in library code). >
This is out of the scope of this PEP and probably a very insignificant issue (luckily, this is not the pathlib PEP). Surrogates will probably work and if not, on can "blaim" broken filenames ;). -- Koos _______________________________________________ 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
