PEP on path module for standard library

John Roth newsgroups at jhrothjr.com
Fri Jul 22 18:48:07 CEST 2005


"Duncan Booth" <duncan.booth at invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns969BA37FF9CE5duncanbooth at 127.0.0.1...
>
> John Roth wrote:
>> You have to start somewhere. One of the lessons that's beginning
>> to seep into people's minds is that getting something that works
>> out there is almost always preferable to (over) design by committee.
>
> Dead right, but once it goes into the standard library it has to pretty
> well stop evolving, so it needs to be right, or as close as possible 
> before
> that happens.

It has to stop evolving in incompatible directions, at least. Although
there is a precident with the process functions, classes, module,
whatever it is. It's up to five versions now, isn't it?

AFAICT, from a very broad brush perspective, there is really
only one substantive issue: how to handle multiple path-like
"things". URLs  have been mentioned in this thread, different
file systems and a possible in-memory file system have been
mentioned in other threads.

So whatever gets out there first shouldn't preempt the ability
to eventually fit into a wider structure without substantial
and incompatible modifications.

John Roth
> 




More information about the Python-list mailing list