For the specific case of `__file__`, yes, I think that would be too disruptive. This isn't a function that *consumes* a path -- it's a path that is consumed by innumerable other modules, most of which aren't under active maintenance, and a sizable fraction of those would break if this turned into a Path.
For other situations, you'd have to get specific -- I can't guess which ones particularly bug you. :-)
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:07 PM Christopher Barker email@example.com wrote:
I really like pathlib.
But for a while is was painful to use, 'cause there was som much code that still used strings for paths. That was made a lot better when we introduced the __fspath__ protocol, and then updated the standard library to use it (everywhere?).
But there are still a few that bug me. For instance:
__file__ is a path represented as a string. It's not too big a deal to wrap it in Path(), but it still annoys me.
So: would it be entirely too disruptive to replace these kinds of things with Path objects?
-- Christopher Barker, PhD
Python Language Consulting
- Scientific Software Development
- Desktop GUI and Web Development
- wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
Python-ideas mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe send an email to email@example.com https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://firstname.lastname@example.org/message/GIKHET... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/