RetroSearch Browse

Sat Apr 9 02:58:54 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/143834.html

On 9 April 2016 at 02:02, Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm still thinking a little bit about 'pathname', which to me sounds
> more like a string than fspath does [1]. It would be nice to have the
> string/path distinction especially when pathlib adoption grows larger.
> But who knows, maybe somewhere in the far future, no-one will care
> much about fspath, fsencode, fsdecode or os.path.

Ah, I like it - adding the "name" suffix nicely distinguishes the
protocol from the rich path objects in pathlib.

I'll catch up on Ethan's dedicated naming thread before commenting
further, though :)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/143834.html below:

[Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol (was: When should pathlib stop being provisional?)