On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 05:35:38PM +0300, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I like consistency very much. But regarding the __fspath__ case, there are not that many people *writing* fspath-enabled classes. Instead, there are many many many more people *using* such classes (and dealing with their compatibility issues in different ways).
What sort of compatibility issues are you referring to? os.fspath is new in 3.6, and 3.7 isn't out yet, so I'm having trouble understanding what compatibility issues you mean.
For those people, the current behavior brings consistency
That's a very unintuitive statement. How is it consistent for fspath to call the __fspath__ dunder method for some objects but ignore it for others?
---after all, it was of course designed by thinking about it from all angles and not just based on my or anyone else's own use cases only.
Can explain the reasoning to us? I don't think it is explained in the PEP. -- Steve