[Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
Paul Moore
p.f.moore at gmail.com
Tue Jul 15 14:31:16 CEST 2014
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Jul 15 14:31:16 CEST 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 15 July 2014 13:19, Ben Hoyt <benhoyt at gmail.com> wrote: > Hmmm, perhaps. You suggest .full_name implies it's the absolute path, > which isn't true. I don't mind .path, but it kind of sounds like "the > Path object associated with this entry". I think "full_name" is fine > -- it's not "abs_name". Interesting. I hadn't really thought about it, but I might have assumed full_name was absolute. However, now I see that it's "only as absolute as the directory argument to scandir is". Having said that, I don't think that full_name *implies* that, just that it's a possible mistake people could make. I agree that "path" could be seen as implying a Path object. My preference would be to retain the name full_name, but just make it explicit in the documentation that it is based on the directory name argument. Paul
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list