[Python-Dev] Maybe, just maybe, pathlib doesn't belong.

Random832 random832 at fastmail.com
Mon Apr 11 18:56:05 EDT 2016

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016, at 17:15, Ethan Furman wrote:
> So we're trying to make option 2 work before falling back to option 1.
> If you have a way to make pathlib work with the stdlib that doesn't 
> involve "fixing" os and os.path, now is the time to speak up.

Fully general re-dispatch from argument types on any call to a function
that raises TypeError or NotImplemented? [e.g. call
Path.__missing_func__(os.open, path, mode)]

Have pathlib monkey-patch things at import?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016, at 17:43, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> So, I might add:
> 3. add more high-level features to pathlib to prevent a downgrade to os 
> or os.path

3. reimplement the entire ecosystem in every walled garden so no-one has
to leave their walled gardens.

What's the point of batteries being included if you can't wire them to

I don't get what you mean by this whole "different level of abstraction"
thing, anyway. The fact that there is one obvious thing to want to do
with open and a Path strongly suggests that that should be able to be
done by passing the Path to open.

Also, what level of abstraction is builtin open? Maybe we should _just_
leave os alone on the grounds of some holy sacred lowest-level-itude,
but allow io and shutils to accept Path?

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list