(original) (raw)

On 11.04.2016 22:33, Alexander Walters wrote:

If there is headway being made, I do not see it.

Funny that you brought it up. I was about posting something myself. I cannot agree completely. But starting with a comment from Paul, I realized that pathlib is something different than a string. After doing the research and our issues with pathlib, I found:

\- pathlib just needs to be improved (see my 5 points)
\- os\[.path\] should not tinkered with

I know that all of those discussions of a new protocol (path->str, \_\_fspath\_\_ etc. etc.) might be rendered worthless by these two statements. But that's my conclusion.

"os" and "os.path" are just lower level. "pathlib" is a high-level, convenience library. When using it, I don't want to use "os" or "os.path" anymore. If I still do, "pathlib" needs improving. Not "os" nor "os.path".

Best,
Sven