equivalent of Ruby's Pathname?

Phlip phlip2005 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 06:21:55 CET 2010


Carl Banks wrote:

> I don't know if it was the reason it was rejected, but a seriously
> divisive question is whether the path should be a subset of string.

OMG that's nothing but the OO "circle vs ellipse" non-question. Glad
to see the Committee derailed a perfectly good library over such
sophistry.

> Under ordinary circumstances it would be a poor choice for inheritance
> (only a few string methods would be useful fot a pathname), but some
> people were fiercely adamant that paths should be passable to open()
> as-in (without having to explicity convert to string).

That's just silly. To be object-based, you should say path.open('r').
fopen() and its ilk are too 1960s...

My 5th Grade science teacher, one Eunice Feight, once expressed
chagrin for submitting a proposal to Readers' Digest, and getting it
accepted. She sold them the following sloka:

  Don't be clever don't be witty
  Or you'll wind up BEING the Committee!

--
  Phlip
  http://penbird.tumblr.com/



More information about the Python-list mailing list