[Python-Dev] Path object design

Georg Brandl g.brandl at gmx.net
Wed Nov 1 19:04:27 CET 2006

glyph at divmod.com wrote:
> On 10:06 am, g.brandl at gmx.net wrote:
>  >What a successor to os.path needs is not security, it's a better (more 
> pythonic,
>  >if you like) interface to the old functionality.
> Why?
> I assert that it needs a better[1] interface because the current 
> interface can lead to a variety of bugs through idiomatic, apparently 
> correct usage.  All the more because many of those bugs are related to 
> critical errors such as security and data integrity.

AFAICS, people just want an interface that is easier to use and feels more...
err... (trying to avoid the p-word). I've never seen security arguments
being made in this discussion.

> If I felt the current interface did a good job at doing the right thing 
> in the right situation, but was cumbersome to use, I would strenuously 
> object to _any_ work taking place to change it.  This is a hard API to 
> get right.

Well, it's hard to change any running system with that attitude. It doesn't
have to be changed if nobody comes up with something that's agreed (*) to
be better.

(*) agreed in the c.l.py sense, of course


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list