On 11.04.2016 22:33, Alexander Walters wrote: > If there is headway being made, I do not see it. Funny that you brought it up. I was about posting something myself. I cannot agree completely. But starting with a comment from Paul, I realized that pathlib is something different than a string. After doing the research and our issues with pathlib, I found: - pathlib just needs to be improved (see my 5 points) - os[.path] should not tinkered with I know that all of those discussions of a new protocol (path->str, __fspath__ etc. etc.) might be rendered worthless by these two statements. But that's my conclusion. "os" and "os.path" are just lower level. "pathlib" is a high-level, convenience library. When using it, I don't want to use "os" or "os.path" anymore. If I still do, "pathlib" needs improving. *Not "os" nor "os.path"*. Best, Sven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20160411/b56b459a/attachment.html>
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