I'm just going to let fly with the +1s and -1s, don't take them too
seriously, they're basically impressionistic (I'm not a huge user of
pathlib yet).
Todd writes:
> So although the names are tentative, perhaps there could be a "fullsuffix"
> property to return the extensions as a single string,
-0 '.'.join(p.suffixes) vs. p.fullsuffix? TOOWTDI says no. I
also don't really see the use case.
> a "nosuffix" extension to return the path without any extensions,
+1 (subject to name bikeshedding) .suffixes itself is kinda
useless without this, and you shouldn't have to roll your own
Do you propose to return a Path or a str here?
> and a "with_suffixes" method that replaces all the suffix and can
> accept multiple arguments (which would then be joined to create the
> extensions).
Do you propose to return a Path or a str here? +1 for a Path, +0 for
a str.
> Second, for methods like "rename" and "replace", it would be nice if there
> was an "exist_ok" argument that defaults to "True" to allow for safe
> renaming.
-1 I don't see how this is an improvement. If it would raise if
exist_ok == False, then
try:
p.rename(another_p, exist_ok=False)
except ExistNotOKError:
take_evasive_action(p)
doesn't seem like a big improvement over
if p.exists():
take_evasive_action(p)
else:
p.rename(another_p)
And if it doesn't raise, then the action just silently fails?
Name bikeshedding: IIRC, if an argument is essentially always going to
be one of a small number of literals, Guido strongly prefers a new
method (eg, rename_safely).
I will admit that the current API seems strange to me: on Unix,
.rename and .replace are apparently the same, and both unsafe? I
would prefer
.rename Unix semantics (deprecated)
.rename_safely replacement for .rename, raises if exists
.replace silently replace
Names to be bikeshedded per usual.
> Third, it would be nice if there was a "uid" and "gid" method for getting
> the numeric user and group IDs for a file,
+1
> or alternatively a "numeric" argument for the "owner" and "group"
> methods.
-1 (see "Guido prefers" above)
> Fourth, for the "is_*" methods, it would be nice if there was a "strict"
> argument that would raise an exception if the file or directory doesn't
> exist.
-1 That seems weird in a library intended for the syntactic
manipulation of uninterpreted paths (even though this is a semantic
operation). TOOWTDI and EIBTI, as well. For backward compatibility,
strict would have to default to False.
> the example for the "parts" property should probably show at least
> one file with an extension,
+1
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
