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

Michel Desmoulin desmoulinmichel at gmail.com
Thu Apr 7 06:50:42 EDT 2016

Le 06/04/2016 22:47, Sven R. Kunze a écrit :
> 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.....

Path objects don't have splitext() or and don't allow  "string" / path.
Those are the ones bugging me the most.

> Best,
> Sven
> _______________________________________________
> 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/desmoulinmichel%40gmail.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list