Home Original page

[Python-Dev] pathlib and issue 11406 (a directory iterator returning stat-like info)

Ben Hoyt benhoyt at gmail.com
Mon Nov 25 00:34:01 CET 2013 
> I think we should think hard and deep about all the consequences. I was
> initially in favor of stat caching, but during offline review of PEP 428
> Nick pointed out that there are too many different ways to do stat caching,
> and convinced me that it would be wrong to rush it. Now that beta 1 is out I
> really don't want to reconsider this -- we really need to stick to the plan.

Fair call, and thanks for the response.

> The ship has likewise sailed for adding scandir() (whether to os or
> pathlib). By all means experiment and get it ready for consideration for
> 3.5, but I don't want to add it to 3.4.

Yes, I was definitely thinking about 3.5 at this stage. :-) What would
be the next step for getting something like os.scandir() added for 3.5
-- a PEP referencing the various issues?

> In general I think there are some tough choices regarding stat caching. You
> already brought up stat vs. lstat -- there's also the issue of what to do if
> [l]stat fails -- do we cache the exception?
>
> IMO, the current incarnation is for convenience, correctness and
> cross-platform semantics -- three C's. The next incarnation can add a fourth
> C, caching.

Three/four C's, I like it!

-Ben
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list