[Ian Bicking]
Losing .open() would make it much harder for anyone wanting to write, say, a URI library that implements the Path API.
[John]
Why? Could you expand a bit?
What's wrong with urlopen(filesystem_path_instance) ?
[Ian]
def read_config(path): text = path.open().read() ... do something ...
I should have expected that answer, but couldn't believe that you think it's a good idea to implement that obese filesystem path API for URLs ;-) Shouldn't we instead have: a) .open()-able objects blessed in the stdlib & stdlib docs, as a separate interface from the path interface (I guess that would be an argument in favour of path implementing that one-method interface, as long as it's not tied too tightly to the fat path interface) b) a path object with a thinner interface (I know you've already expressed that preference yourself...)? John