> On 18 Mar 2018, at 11:58, George Fischhof <geo...@fischhof.hu> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > it seems for me that the welcoming of this proposal is rather positive than > not.
I think that is up for debate. > > Of course several details could be put into it, but I think it would better > to let the developers decide the details, because they know the environment > and the possibilities. You mean you have no intention of doing the implementation? If not you who is willing to the go the, not inconsiderable, work. > > The name of the functions and the method they solve the problem (for example > rmdir(tree=True9 instead of removedirs()) is all the same. But it is not the same. os.removedirs only removes dirs, where as shutil.rmdir will remove files and dirs. > > The (main) goal would be that file and directory operations reside in one > module. As I said earlier the question is should that module be pathlib? There are good arguments on both side. Barry > And currently the pathlib seems to be the best candidate. > (we could put then into a very new module, but it would be just another > duplicataion) > > > So what do You think, this proposal IS PEPable or should I do something with > this to achieve the PEPable state? > > > BR, > George > > 2018-03-18 9:05 GMT+01:00 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com > <mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com>>: > On 16 March 2018 at 03:15, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com > <mailto:ros...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:38 AM, George Fischhof <geo...@fischhof.hu > <mailto:geo...@fischhof.hu>> wrote: > > > > > > " if new file functions are added, they will go only in pathlib, > > which makes pathlib effectively mandatory;" > > Yes but I think this part of the evolution: slowly everyone will shift to > > pathlib, > > and being mandatory is true for the current status as well: if you need a > > function, you need the module. > > Right now if you wan to execute some file operations, you need os plus > > shutil, because the half of the > > functions are in one of them, the other half is in the other module > > The os module is cheap; pathlib has a definite cost. If every file > operation goes through pathlib > > Keep in mind that the `os` layer will never go away: `pathlib` still needs a > lower level API to call to *do the work* of actually interacting with the > underlying operating system APIs (e.g. this is why we added os.scandir). > > A similar situation applies when it comes to glob, fnmatch, etc. > > Even `shutil` will likely retain its place as a lower level procedural API > behind pathlib's object-oriented facade, since raw strings are still > frequently going to be easier to work with when mixing and matching Python > code and native operating system shell code. > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com <mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com> | > Brisbane, Australia > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org <mailto:Python-ideas@python.org> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas> > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > <http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/> > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
