[Python-Dev] PEP 428 (pathlib) now committed

anatoly techtonik techtonik at gmail.com
Sat Nov 23 16:15:08 CET 2013

I'd vote for a different perspective on path handling. For me the
pathlib is not the
good way to go. Especially with copying ill behaviour of old os.path functions.

We definitely need a "task force page" dedicated to "working with paths in
Python" to collaborate. ML + PEP with privileged write access is ineffective.

While I like the problem decomposition what I see in pathlib, I don't think it
supports the greatest power of Python that it allows you not to think about
cross-platform differences -
I've got the impression that while using pathlib you should care about those.

I am +1 for iterating few more times to research best compromise between the
most simple possible and most user friendly interface (wart-free). But every
iteration should be historically accessible like in blog report, not like in
Mercurial PEP diff. There is still problem to dedicate time though.

anatoly t.

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> wrote:
> 22.11.13 18:44, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
>> I've pushed pathlib to the repository. I'm hopeful there won't be
>> new buildbot failures because of it, but still, there may be some
>> platform-specific issues I'm unaware of.
> Congratuate Antoine!
> Does it means that issues #11344 (Add os.path.splitpath(path) function) [1]
> and #13968 (Support recursive globs) [2] have no chance? Both are ready for
> commit and waits for reviews almost a year. Are the os.path and glob modules
> deprecated now?
> [1] http://bugs.python.org/issue11344
> [2] http://bugs.python.org/issue13968
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/techtonik%40gmail.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list