RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 6 01:00:01 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/143661.html

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> [...] we can't do:
>
>     app_root = Path(...)
>     config = app_root/'settings.cfg'
>     with open(config) as blah:
>         # whatever
>
> It feels like instead of addressing this basic disconnect, the answer has
> instead been:  add that to pathlib!  Which works great -- until a user or a
> library gets this path object and tries to use something from os on it.

I agree that asking for config.open() isn't the right answer here
(even if it happens to work). But in this example, once 3.5.2 is out,
the solution would be to use open(config.path), and that will also
work when passing it to a library. Is it still unacceptable then?

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/143661.html below:

[Python-Dev] When should pathlib stop being provisional?