On 29 March 2016 at 13:31, Sven R. Kunze
But why not open another thread with a solution to this issue as has Koos done with p-strings?
Agreed, that's fine. I personally don't have any solutions to offer, so I'll wait to comment on any that do arise (as I've been doing on the p-string proposal).
(And either way, what's the likelihood of him ever wanting to use pathlib again?)
You mean like myself? As I wanted to use pathlib but found myself writing awkward code with it? (btw. that was not the path->str issue)
That as well needs to be fixed but it's no argument for delaying other improvements, right?
Certainly. However, I don't think p-strings are an improvement - I'm not suggesting delaying them because other things need to be fixed, I'm suggesting that the whole proposal shouldn't be implemented because it's not a good idea. If you want custom string-like syntaxes, PEP 501 is where you should be getting involved. Adding a single-purpose custom string prefix is a proposal that *should* be delayed until the fate of a more general proposal of which it's a subset is decided. Because once syntax is added it's nigh-on impossible to get rid of. Paul