On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 at 15:09 Koos Zevenhoven email@example.com wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Ethan Furman firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 05/13/2016 01:30 PM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
It turns out it has been almost a month since this, and the PEP draft is already looking good. It seems we might now be ready to discuss it. Should we add the generic type FSPath[str]?
Guido's post on one of the other threads:
There's no need for typing.PathLike.
So I'm gonna say no. ;)
Oh, it looks like a read those two emails in the wrong order ;).
Anyway, I was going to suggest making the abstract base class subscriptable too like this: PathABC[str] is a str-based path ABC, and PathABC[bytes] a bytes-based one ;). I don't know if that should be called a generic type or not, though.
The PEP already addresses this and says "no".
I obviously know the PEP very well, and it doesn't. But I'm probably just doing a bad job explaining what I mean right now, and should probably go to bed. Sorry.