[Python-Dev] When should pathlib stop being provisional?

[Sven R. Kunze]

Yeah, sure. But it was more like this on a single line:

    os.missing1(str(our_path.something1)) *** 
os.missing2(str(our_path.something1)) *** 
os.missing1(str(our_path.something1))

And then it started to get messy because you need to work on a single 
long line or you need to open more than one line.

It was a simple thing actually. Like repeating the same calls to pathlib 
just because we need to switch to os.path.... I will ask my colleague if 
he remembers or if we can recover the code tommorrow...


Best,
Sven


NOTE to myself: getting old, need to write down everything


On 06.04.2016 23:03, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 04/06/2016 01:47 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>
>> I still cannot remember what the concrete issue was why we dropped
>> pathlib the same day we gave it a try. It was something really stupid
>> and although I hoped to reduce the size of the code, it was less
>> readable. But it was not the path->str issue but something more mundane.
>> It was something that forced us to use os[.path] as Path didn't provide
>> something equivalent. Cannot remember.....
>
> I'm willing to guess that if you had been able to just call
>
>   os.whatever(your_path_obj)
>
> it would have been at most a minor annoyance.
>
> -- 
> ~Ethan~
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/srkunze%40mail.de