RetroSearch Browse

Thu Apr 7 11:33:13 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/143763.html

On 04/07/2016 08:18 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 7 April 2016 at 15:40, Eric Snow  wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 2016 11:11 PM, "Raymond Hettinger" wrote:

>>> Having worked through the API when it is first released, I find it to be
>>> highly forgettable (i.e. I have to re-read the docs each time I've revisited
>>> it).
>>
>> Agreed, though it's arguably better than argparse, logging, unittest, or
>> several other stdlib modules.

> Personally, the main issue I have with remembering pathlib method
> names, is the inconsistency with the existing modules.

That is one of the things I really dislike.  If the behaviour is the 
same as the os version, it should have the same name.  I also have no 
problem with new names that makes more sense so long as an alias exists 
for the os version (can even be deprecated without removal).

> Would I change the names? I honestly don't know. If os.path was going
> to disappear, then no - the inconsistency is a short term problem. But
> even if there's a major switch to pathlib, I expect os.path to remain
> indefinitely, and that inconsistency will be a wart that we'll have to
> live with for a long time.

os.path isn't going anywhere.

--
~Ethan~

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/143763.html below:

[Python-Dev] Other pathlib improvements? was: When should pathlib stop being provisional?