[Python-ideas] Working with Path objects: p-strings?

[Paul Moore]

On 29 March 2016 at 13:31, Sven R. Kunze <srkunze at mail.de> wrote:
> But why not open another thread with a solution to this issue as has Koos
> done with p-strings?

Agreed, that's fine. I personally don't have any solutions to offer,
so I'll wait to comment on any that do arise (as I've been doing on
the p-string proposal).

>> (And either way, what's the likelihood of him ever wanting to use
>> pathlib again?)
>
> You mean like myself? As I wanted to use pathlib but found myself writing
> awkward code with it? (btw. that was not the path->str issue)
>
> That as well needs to be fixed but it's no argument for delaying other
> improvements, right?

Certainly. However, I don't think p-strings are an improvement - I'm
not suggesting delaying them because other things need to be fixed,
I'm suggesting that the whole proposal shouldn't be implemented
because it's not a good idea.

If you want custom string-like syntaxes, PEP 501 is where you should
be getting involved. Adding a single-purpose custom string prefix is a
proposal that *should* be delayed until the fate of a more general
proposal of which it's a subset is decided. Because once syntax is
added it's nigh-on impossible to get rid of.

Paul