[Python-Dev] Pathlib enhancments - method name only (original) (raw)

Koos Zevenhoven k7hoven at gmail.com
Fri Apr 8 16:51:00 EDT 2016

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:39 PM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 19:24:44 -0000, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 at 12:10 Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Chris Barker <chris.barker at noaa.gov> > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > pathstr # pathstring > >> > > >> > >> Or perhaps pathstring in case it may be or return byte strings. But there are other paths than OS file system paths. I prefer fspath or ospath myself. I think the fact that it is a string is implied by the fact that it is getting us the thing we can pass to the os (since Python3 deals with os paths as strings unless you specify otherwise, only converting them back to bytes, on unix, at the last moment). Heh, although I suppose one could make the argument that it should return whatever the native OS wants, and save the low level code from having to do that? Pass the path object all the way down to that "final step" in the C layer? (Just ignore me, I'm sure I'm only making trouble :)

My favorites are fspath and pathname, and since this is a dunder methdod, it is not as crucial what it is called. I have the feeling the consensus is converging towards fspath?

I'll comment on the bytes issue in the other thread. Boy these threads are all over the place!

-Koos

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list