[Python-Dev] PEP 355 status

[Talin]

BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> On 10/28/06, Talin <talin at acm.org> wrote:
>> BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>> > 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. :)
>>
>> So...how's that post mortem coming along? Did you get a sufficient
>> answer to your questions?
> 
> Yes and no. All posts have very exhaustively explained why the
> implementation in PEP 355 is far from optimal. And I can see why it
> is. However, what I am uncertain of is Guido's opinion on the
> background and motivation of the PEP:
> 
> "Many have felt that the API for manipulating file paths as offered in
> the os.path module is inadequate."
> 
> "Currently, Python has a large number of different functions scattered
> over half a dozen modules for handling paths.  This makes it hard for
> newbies and experienced developers to to choose the right method."
> 
> IMHO, the current API is very messy. But when it comes to PEPs, it is
> mostly Guido's opinion that counts. :) Unless he sees a problem with
> the current situation, then there is no point in writing more PEPs.
> 
>> And the more interesting question is, will the effort to reform Python's
>> path functionality continue?
> 
> I certainly hope so. But maybe it is better to target Python 3000, or
> maybe the Python devs already have ideas for how they want the path
> APIs to look like?

I think targeting Py3K is a good idea. The whole purpose of Py3K is to 
"clean up the messes" of past decisions, and to that end, a certain 
amount of backwards-compatibility breakage will be allowed (although if 
that can be avoided, so much the better.)

And to the second point, having been following the Py3K list, I don't 
anyone has expressed any preconceived notions of how they want things to 
look (well, except I know I do, but I'm not a core dev :) :).

>> So what happens next?
> 
> I really hope that Guido will give his input when he has more time.

First bit of advice is, don't hold your breath.

Second bit of advice is, if you really do want Guido's feedback (or the 
core python devs), start my creating a (short) list of the outstanding 
points of controversy to be resolved. Once those issues have been 
decided, then proceed to the next stage, building consensus by increments.

Basically, anything that requires Guido to read more than a page of 
material isn't going to get done quickly. At least, in my experience :)

> Mvh Björn