On 12.04.2016 12:41, Paul Moore wrote: > As your thoughts appear to have been triggered by my comments, I feel > I should clarify. > > 1. I like pathlib even as it is right now, and I'm strongly -1 on removing it. > 2. The "external dependency" aspect of 3rd party solutions makes them > far less useful to me. > 3. The work on improving integration with the stdlib (which is nearly > sorted now, as far as I can see) is a big improvement, and I'm all in > favour. But even without it, I wouldn't want pathlib to be removed. > 4. There are further improvements that could be made to pathlib, > certainly, but again they are optional, and pathlib is fine without > them. My conclusion is that these changes are not optional and tweaking os, io and shutil is just yet another workaround for a clean solution. :) Just my two cents. > 5. I wish more 3rd party code integrated better with pathlib. The > improved integration work might help with this. But ultimately, Python > 2 compatibility is likely to be the biggest block (either perceived or > real - we can make pathlib support as simple as possible, but some 3rd > party authors will remain unwilling to add support for Python 3 only > features in the short term). This isn't a pathlib problem. > 6. There will probably always be a place for low-level os/os.path > code. Adding support in those modules for pathlib doesn't affect that > fact, but does make it easier to use pathlib "seamlessly", so why not > do so? > > tl; dr; I'm 100% in favour of pathlib, and in the direction the > current discussion (excluding "let's give up on pathlib" digressions) > is going. Best, Sven
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