[Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol (was: When should pathlib stop being provisional?) (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Apr 9 02:58:54 EDT 2016
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol (was: When should pathlib stop being provisional?)
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol (was: When should pathlib stop being provisional?)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 9 April 2016 at 02:02, Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven at gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still thinking a little bit about 'pathname', which to me sounds more like a string than fspath does [1]. It would be nice to have the string/path distinction especially when pathlib adoption grows larger. But who knows, maybe somewhere in the far future, no-one will care much about fspath, fsencode, fsdecode or os.path.
Ah, I like it - adding the "name" suffix nicely distinguishes the protocol from the rich path objects in pathlib.
I'll catch up on Ethan's dedicated naming thread before commenting further, though :)
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol (was: When should pathlib stop being provisional?)
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Defining a path protocol (was: When should pathlib stop being provisional?)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]