[Python-Dev] When should pathlib stop being provisional?

Sven R. Kunze srkunze at mail.de
Wed Apr 6 16:47:05 EDT 2016

On 06.04.2016 07:00, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>> [...] we can't do:
>>      app_root = Path(...)
>>      config = app_root/'settings.cfg'
>>      with open(config) as blah:
>>          # whatever
>> It feels like instead of addressing this basic disconnect, the answer has
>> instead been:  add that to pathlib!  Which works great -- until a user or a
>> library gets this path object and tries to use something from os on it.
> I agree that asking for config.open() isn't the right answer here
> (even if it happens to work).

How come?

> But in this example, once 3.5.2 is out,
> the solution would be to use open(config.path), and that will also
> work when passing it to a library. Is it still unacceptable then?

I think so. Although in this example I would prefer the shorter 
config.open alternative as I am lazy.

I still cannot remember what the concrete issue was why we dropped 
pathlib the same day we gave it a try. It was something really stupid 
and although I hoped to reduce the size of the code, it was less 
readable. But it was not the path->str issue but something more mundane. 
It was something that forced us to use os[.path] as Path didn't provide 
something equivalent. Cannot remember.....


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list