On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:58 AM, George Fischhof <geo...@fischhof.hu> wrote: > 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.
That's not how PEPs work :-). Someone has to do the work of collating contradictory feedback and making opinionated design proposals, and the person who does that is called the PEP author. In this case, I'd also suggest framing the PEP as a list of specific things that should be added to pathlib.Path, with justifications for each. If your argument is "X should be in pathlib because it's in some other module", then that's not very compelling -- by definition it already means we have an X, so why do we need another? I think for a number of these cases there actually is a good answer to that question, but your PEP has to actually provide that answer :-). -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
