[Python-Dev] PEP 355 status

BJörn Lindqvist bjourne at gmail.com
Wed Oct 25 02:11:48 CEST 2006

On 10/1/06, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, Giovanni Bajo <rasky at develer.com> wrote:
> > It would be terrific if you gave us some clue about what is wrong in PEP355, so
> > that the next guy does not waste his time. For instance, I find PEP355
> > incredibly good for my own path manipulation (much cleaner and concise than the
> > awful os.path+os+shutil+stat mix), and I have trouble understanding what is
> > *so* wrong with it.
> >
> > You said "it's an amalgam of unrelated functionality", but you didn't say what
> > exactly is "unrelated" for you.
> Sorry, no time. But others in this thread clearly agreed with me, so
> they can guide you.

I'd like to write a post mortem for PEP 355. But one important
question that haven't been answered is if there is a possibility for a
path-like PEP to succeed in the future? If so, does the path-object
implementation have to prove itself in the wild before it can be
included in Python? From earlier posts it seems like you don't like
the concept of path objects, which others have found very interesting.
If that is the case, then it would be nice to hear it explicitly. :)

mvh Björn

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list