[Python-Dev] Pathlib enhancments - method name only

Koos Zevenhoven k7hoven at gmail.com
Mon Apr 11 07:46:12 EDT 2016

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 April 2016 at 04:25, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 at 11:13 Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2016 10:46 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
>>>  > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Chris Barker  wrote:
>>>  >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> I'm still thinking a little bit about 'pathname', which to me sounds
>>>  >>> more like a string than fspath does.
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >> I like that a lot - or even "__pathstr__" or "__pathstring__"
>>>  >> after all, we're making a big deal out of the fact that a path is
>>>  >> *not a string*, but rather a string is a *representation* (or
>>>  >> serialization) of a path.
>>> That's a decent point.
>>> So the plausible choices are, I think:
>>> - __fspath__  # File System Path -- possible confusion with Path
>> +1
> I like __fspath__, but I'm also sympathetic to Koos' point that we're
> really dealing with path *names* being produced via this protocol,
> rather than the paths themselves.
> That would bring the completely explicit "__fspathname__" into the
> mix, which would be comparable in length to "__getattribute__" as a
> magic method name (both in terms of number of syllable and number of
> characters).
> Considering the helper function usage, here's some examples in
> combination with os.fsencode and os.fsdecode:
>     # Status quo for binary/text path conversions
>     text_path = os.fsdecode(bytes_path)
>     bytes_path = os.fsencode(text_path)
>     # Getting a text path from an arbitrary object
>     text_path = os.fspath(obj) # This doesn't scream "returns text!" to me
>     text_path = os.fspathname(obj) # This does
>     # Getting a binary path from an arbitrary object
>     bytes_path = os.fsencode(os.fspath(obj))
>     bytes_path = os.fsencode(os.fspathname(obj))
> I'm starting to think the semantic nudge from the "name" suffix when
> reading the code is worth the extra four characters when writing it
> (keeping in mind that the whole point of this exercise is that most
> folks *won't* be writing explicit conversions - the stdlib will handle
> it on their behalf).

Regarding the name, I completely agree with Nick's reasoning (above).
I'm not sure it's a high priority to make dunder-method names short.
They are not typed very often, and when the number of these
"protocols" increases, you face potentially ambiguous names more and
more often (there already is a '__path__' and a '__file__' etc., as
has been brought up earlier in these threads.). In other words, it's a
good idea to have some information in the name.

> I also think the more explicit name helps answer some of the type
> signature questions that have arisen:
> 1. Does os.fspathname return rich Path objects? No, it returns names
> as str objects

Or byte strings, it seems, unfortunately.

> 2. Will file descriptors pass through os.fspathname? No, as they're
> not names, they're numeric descriptors.
> 3. Will bytes-like objects pass through os.fspathname? No, as they're
> not names, they're encodings of names

If fspathname(...) is to be used in os.path.*, it will break things if
it starts to turn encoded bytes pathnames into str pathnames, which it
did not previously do.

And if fspathname is not to be used in os.path.*, who would be our
intended user of fspathname? I assume we we don't want to encourage
typical 'users' to manipulate pathnames by hand.

>> I personally still like __ospath__ as well.
> That one fails the "Is it ambiguous when spoken aloud?" test for me:
> if someone mentions "oh-ess-path", are they talking about os.path or
> __ospath__? With "eff-ess-path" or "eff-ess-path-name", that problem
> doesn't arise.

+1 to this too.


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list