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

R. David Murray rdmurray at bitdance.com
Sat Apr 9 09:02:04 EDT 2016

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 17:48:38 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

On 9 April 2016 at 04:25, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 at 11:13 Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote: >> On 04/08/2016 10:46 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Chris Barker wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: >> >> >>> I'm still thinking a little bit about 'pathname', which to me sounds >> >>> more like a string than fspath does. >> >> >> >> >> >> I like that a lot - or even "pathstr" or "pathstring" >> >> after all, we're making a big deal out of the fact that a path is >> >> not a string, but rather a string is a representation (or >> >> serialization) of a path. >> >> That's a decent point. >> >> So the plausible choices are, I think: >> >> - fspath # File System Path -- possible confusion with Path > > +1

I like fspath, but I'm also sympathetic to Koos' point that we're really dealing with path names being produced via this protocol, rather than the paths themselves. That would bring the completely explicit "fspathname" into the mix, which would be comparable in length to "getattribute" as a magic method name (both in terms of number of syllable and number of characters).

I'm not going to vote -1, but for the record I have no real intuition as to what a "path name" would be. An arbitrary identifier that we're using to refer to an os path?

That is, a 'filename' is the identifier we've assigned to this thing pointed to by an inode in linux, but an os path is a text representation of the path from the root filename to a specified filename. That is, the path is the name, so to say "path name" sounds redundant and confusing to me.

--David

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list