On 09/05/2008, at 04:45, Humberto Diogenes wrote:
I noticed you've already removed os.path.walk in r62909, but there
are still some references to it in the code, as I noticed issuing a
`make altinstall` on a Mac:
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'walk'
Here's the fix fo
On 08/05/2008, at 00:12, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can I go ahead and remove this then?
Yes, but let's do it after Barry has released the alphas.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I go ahead and remove this then?
Yes, but let's do it after Barry has released the alphas.
> > > It seems that os.walk has more options and a cleaner interface to
> > > walking trees than os.path.walk does. I
Can I go ahead and remove this then?
>
> > It seems that os.walk has more options and a cleaner interface to
> > walking trees than os.path.walk does. Is there support for the removal
> > this in Py3k?
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Benjamin Peterson
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
"The
On Thu, 01 May 2008 08:58:22 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think Giovanni's point is an important one as well - with an
>> iterator,
>> you can pipeline your operations far more efficiently, since you don't
>> have t
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:02:28 -0700 "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Tim Heaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sp
On 30 Apr, 11:27, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Heaney wrote:
> > Speaking of this, is it too late to lobby for an iterator version of
> > os.listdir? (Perhaps listdir would not be the best name. :)
>
> There was discussion about an opendir() function a while
> back that would return
On Thu, May 01, 2008, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, the primary application I'm thinking of is a CGI that displays
>> part of a directory listing (paged) for manual processing of individual
>> files.
>
> But wouldn't yo
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Giovanni's point is an important one as well - with an iterator,
> you can pipeline your operations far more efficiently, since you don't have
> to wait for the whole directory listing before doing anything (e.g. if
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, the primary application I'm thinking of is a CGI that displays
> part of a directory listing (paged) for manual processing of individual
> files.
But wouldn't you usually want the listing sorted, while os.listdir()
does
On Thu, May 01, 2008, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> There is one use case I can see for an iterator-version of
>> os.listdir() (to be named os.opendir()): when globbing a huge
>> directory looking for a certain pattern. Using os.listdir() you end up
>> needed enough memor
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
There is one use case I can see for an iterator-version of
os.listdir() (to be named os.opendir()): when globbing a huge
directory looking for a certain pattern. Using os.listdir() you end up
needed enough memory to hold all of the names at once. Us
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> There is one use case I can see for an iterator-version of
> os.listdir() (to be named os.opendir()): when globbing a huge
> directory looking for a certain pattern. Using os.listdir() you end up
> needed enough memory to hold all of the names at once. Using
> os.opendir()
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:02:31 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> There is one use case I can see for an iterator-version of os.listdir()
> (to be named os.opendir()): when globbing a huge directory looking for a
> certain pattern. Using os.listdir() you end up needed enough memory to
> hold all of th
There is one use case I can see for an iterator-version of
os.listdir() (to be named os.opendir()): when globbing a huge
directory looking for a certain pattern. Using os.listdir() you end up
needed enough memory to hold all of the names at once. Using
os.opendir() you would need only enough memory
> There's a big difference between "not enough memory" and "directory
> consumes lots of memory". My company has some directories with several
> hundred thousand entries, so using an iterator would be appreciated
> (although by the time we upgrade to Python 3.x, we probably will have
> fixed that
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Tim Heaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Speaking of this, is it too late to lobby for an iterator version of
> >> os.listdir? (Perhaps
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Tim Heaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking of this, is it too late to lobby for an iterator version of
>> os.listdir? (Perhaps listdir would not be the best name. :)
>>
>> There is one at
>>
>> http://wxi
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Still, Guido's question stands: do you have an actual use case where
you would want to stop earlier?
It just seems a bit disappointing to me that the underlying
OS has the ability to read directories an item at a time,
but this is not made available to the Python programm
Tim Heaney wrote:
Speaking of this, is it too late to lobby for an iterator version of
os.listdir? (Perhaps listdir would not be the best name. :)
There was discussion about an opendir() function a while
back that would return an iterable, but I don't think
anything came of it.
--
Greg
___
> I don't know how compelling it is, but the dirread Plan 9 call to get
> a directory listing
> (http://plan9.bell-labs.com/magic/man2html/2/dirread) returns only a
> subset of the entries in the directory so it effectively acts as an
> iterator.
All operating system APIs to read directories work
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Tim Heaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Speaking of this, is it too late to lobby for an iterator version of
> > os.listdir? (Perhaps listdir would not be the best name. :)
> >
> >
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Tim Heaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of this, is it too late to lobby for an iterator version of
> os.listdir? (Perhaps listdir would not be the best name. :)
>
> There is one at
>
> http://wxidle.sourceforge.net/projects/xlistdir/
>
> but I think i
Speaking of this, is it too late to lobby for an iterator version of
os.listdir? (Perhaps listdir would not be the best name. :)
There is one at
http://wxidle.sourceforge.net/projects/xlistdir/
but I think it ought to be in the standard library. Moreover, if we
had such a thing, shouldn't os.w
2008/4/28, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It seems that os.walk has more options and a cleaner interface to
> walking trees than os.path.walk does. Is there support for the removal
> this in Py3k?
+1
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.o
+1
On 4/28/08, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that os.walk has more options and a cleaner interface to
> walking trees than os.path.walk does. Is there support for the removal
> this in Py3k?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Benjamin Peterson
> __
It seems that os.walk has more options and a cleaner interface to
walking trees than os.path.walk does. Is there support for the removal
this in Py3k?
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.or
27 matches
Mail list logo
