!Re: PEP on path module for standard library

[John Roth]

"Michael Hoffman" <cam.ac.uk at mh391.invalid> wrote in message 
news:dbofk2$g1f$1 at gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Many of you are familiar with Jason Orendorff's path module 
> <http://www.jorendorff.com/articles/python/path/>, which is frequently 
> recommended here on c.l.p. I submitted an RFE to add it to the Python 
> standard library, and Reinhold Birkenfeld started a discussion on it in 
> python-dev 
> <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-June/054438.html>.
>
> The upshot of the discussion was that many python-dev'ers wanted path 
> added to the stdlib, but Guido was not convinced and said it must have a 
> PEP.

Why did Guido want a PEP? Is it because he likes the idea but
feels the feature set needs to be examined a bit more by the wider
community, or is it some other reason?

I'm all in favor of having something that gives an alternative to
the kludge of functions that are "just a thin wrapper on the C
standard library." Considering the known problems with the
C standard library and the fact that it's strictly procedural, that
statement doesn't fill me with confidence. Rather it creates a
mild sense of dread: nobody has thought out how to do those
functions in a useful oo manner.

Path looks useable to me. Do I think it's going to be the
last word? I sincerely hope not! The only way we're going
to find out where it really needs to go from here, though, is
to put it out and find out how the wider community uses
and abuses it.

John Roth

> Thanks in advance,
> -- 
> Michael Hoffman