[Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol (original) (raw)

Eric Snow ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com
Thu Apr 7 10:21:34 EDT 2016

On Apr 7, 2016 1:22 AM, "Georg Brandl" <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:

On 04/06/2016 07:26 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > 1. Name: path, fspath, or something else? path is already taken as a module attribute, so I would avoid it. fspath is fine with me, although the more explicit variants are also ok. It's not like you need to read/write it constantly (that's the goal).

+1

I also think that ospath may be more correct since it is an OS-dependent representation, e.g. slash vs. backslash.

> 2. Method or attribute? (changes what kind of one-liner you might use in > libraries, but I think historically all protocols have been methods and the > serialized string representation might be costly to build) An attribute would be somewhat inconsistent with the special-method lookup rules (looked up on the type, not the instance), so a method is probably a better choice.

I was just about to point this out. The deviation by pickle (lookup on instance rather than type) has been a source of pain.

> 3. Built-in? (name is dependent on #1 if we add one) I don't think it warrants a builtin. I'd place it as a function in pathlib.

+1

> 4. Add the method/attribute to str? (I assume so, much like index() is on > int, but I have not seen it explicitly stated so I would rather clarify it) +1.

+1

> 5. Expand the C API to have something like PyObjectPath()? +1 (with Py at first) since you're going to need it in a lot of C functions.

+1

-eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20160407/53b1d9a4/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list