Home Original page

[Python-Dev] file system path protocol PEP

Sven R. Kunze srkunze at mail.de
Fri May 13 05:24:57 EDT 2016 
On 13.05.2016 10:36, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> This has just been discussed very recently in this thread (and earlier
> too).

Could you point me to that? It seems I missed that part. I only found 
posts related to performance degradation.

However, the proposed semantics will change if the checks are swapped. 
So, my actual question is:

Is that an intended API inconsistency or a known bug supposed to be 
resolved later?

> It may make sense, but it's not among our current worries.

It might not be yours but mine. ;) That's why I was asking.

> Besides, we already added the new fspath semantics to the PEP.
>
> While I hope Brett is asleep in his time zone, I'm guessing he will
> agree (just saying this because you write "@Brett").
>
> -- Koos
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Sven R. Kunze <srkunze at mail.de> wrote:
>> On 12.05.2016 18:24, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> def fspath(p: Union[str, bytes, PathLike]) -> Union[str, bytes]:
>>>      if isinstance(p, (str, bytes)):
>>>          return p
>>>      try:
>>>          return p.__fspath__
>>>      except AttributeError:
>>>          raise TypeError(...)
>>
>> @Brett
>> Would you think it makes sense to swap the str/bytes check and the
>> __fspath__ check?
>>
>>
>> I just thought of a class subclassing str/bytes and defines __fspath__. Its
>> __fspath__ method would be ignored currently.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Sven
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Python-Dev mailing list
>> Python-Dev at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/k7hoven%40gmail.com
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list