> > - When needed, how hard is it to hand-code a directory walk? It's not
> > like the body of the walk() function is rocket science.
>
> That's hardly the point of improving the standard library, though, is
> it? I'm all for putting the kitchen sink in there, especially if it
> originates with a use case ("I had some dishes to wash..." ;-)
But if I had to do it over again, I wouldn't have added walk() in the
current form. I often find it harder to fit a particular program's
needs in the API offered by walk() than it is to reimplement the walk
myself. That's why I'm concerned about adding to it.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4