[Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol
Chris Angelico
rosuav at gmail.com
Thu Apr 7 08:11:34 EDT 2016
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Thu Apr 7 08:11:34 EDT 2016
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote: > Excellent! Narrowing the field then to: > > __fspath__ > > __os_path__ > > > Step right up! Cast yer votes! +0.9 for __fspath__; I'd prefer a one-word name, but with __path__ out of the running (which I agree with), there's no other obvious word. __fspath__ is a close second. -1 for __os_path__, unless it's reasonable to justify it as "most of the standard library uses Path objects, but os.path uses strings, so before you pass a Path to anything in os.path, you call path.ospath() on it, which calls __os_path__()". And that seems a bit hairy and roundabout; what it's _really_ doing is giving you back a string, and that has little to do with os.path. ChrisA
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list