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

Sven R. Kunze srkunze at mail.de
Tue Apr 12 10:54:03 EDT 2016

On 12.04.2016 12:41, Paul Moore wrote:
> As your thoughts appear to have been triggered by my comments, I feel
> I should clarify.
> 1. I like pathlib even as it is right now, and I'm strongly -1 on removing it.
> 2. The "external dependency" aspect of 3rd party solutions makes them
> far less useful to me.
> 3. The work on improving integration with the stdlib (which is nearly
> sorted now, as far as I can see) is a big improvement, and I'm all in
> favour. But even without it, I wouldn't want pathlib to be removed.
> 4. There are further improvements that could be made to pathlib,
> certainly, but again they are optional, and pathlib is fine without
> them.

My conclusion is that these changes are not optional and tweaking os, io 
and shutil is just yet another workaround for a clean solution. :)

Just my two cents.

> 5. I wish more 3rd party code integrated better with pathlib. The
> improved integration work might help with this. But ultimately, Python
> 2 compatibility is likely to be the biggest block (either perceived or
> real - we can make pathlib support as simple as possible, but some 3rd
> party authors will remain unwilling to add support for Python 3 only
> features in the short term). This isn't a pathlib problem.
> 6. There will probably always be a place for low-level os/os.path
> code. Adding support in those modules for pathlib doesn't affect that
> fact, but does make it easier to use pathlib "seamlessly", so why not
> do so?
> tl; dr; I'm 100% in favour of pathlib, and in the direction the
> current discussion (excluding "let's give up on pathlib" digressions)
> is going.


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list