[IPython-dev] [Fwd: IPython 0.7 - possible bug with "%edit -p"]

Fernando Perez Fernando.Perez at colorado.edu
Mon Jan 16 15:03:10 EST 2006

Ville Vainio wrote:
> On 1/16/06, Fernando Perez <Fernando.Perez at colorado.edu> wrote:
>>Well, let's not assume it and use file_read in general: at some point, someone
>>might want to hack on Jython/IronPython ports, and the more compatible we are,
>>the better.  I know that _today_ we have sys._getframe (and probably other)
>>dependencies on CPython, but it doesn't cost us anything right now to keep the
>>code as open to compatibility as possible.
> It that case, it might be more comfortable to go with something that
> wraps it all (vs having our own wrappers for operations), I'm of
> course talking about the "path" module:
> http://www.jorendorff.com/articles/python/path/
> It greatly increases the comfort of file manipulation and I use it for
> most of my python scripting at work. The "license" is liberal enough
> to just copy the module over to IPython source tree and call it BSD
> code.
> Of course I'm not talking about porting already existing code over to
> the path module, but for new code it's worth the shot.

I've looked at path in the past, and I liked it a lot.  I'd add a note to the 
file copying this language about the license:

License: You may use path.py for whatever you wish, at your own risk. (For 
example, you may modify, relicense, and redistribute it.) It is provided 
without any guarantee or warranty of any kind, not even for merchantability or 
fitness for any purpose.

and would indicate that we're including it unmodified (for now, unless we need 
to fix anything in it), just as a convenience feature so users don't have an 
extra dependency when using ipython.

Given that ipython is strongly used as for shell-like usage, I'd say that 
shipping path makes perfect sense.  Toss it in.



More information about the IPython-dev mailing list