[Python-Dev] pathlib - current status of discussions

[Koos Zevenhoven]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> One possible way to address this concern would be to have the
> underlying protocol be bytes/str (since boundary code frequently needs
> to handle the paths-are-bytes assumption in POSIX), but offer an
> "os.fspathname" API that rejected bytes output from os.fspath. That
> is, it would be equivalent to:
>
>     def fspathname(path):
>         name = os.fspath(path)
>         if not isinstance(name, str):
>             raise TypeError("Expected str for pathname, not
> {}".format(type(name)))
>         return name
>
> That way folks that wanted the clean "must be str" signature could use
> os.fspathname, while those that wanted to accept either could use the
> lower level os.fspath.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this. I kept bringing up bytes in the
discussion because os.path.* etc. and DirEntry support bytes and will
need to keep doing so for backwards compatibility.  I have no
intention to use bytes pathnames myself. But it may break existing
code if functions, for instance, began to decode bytes paths to str if
they did not previously do so (or to reject them). It is indeed a lot
safer to make new code not support bytes paths than to change the
behavior of old code.

But then again, do we really recommend new code to use os.fspath (or
os.fspathname)? Should they not be using either pathlib or os.path.*
etc. so they don't have to care? I'm sure Ethan and his library (or
some other path library) will manage without the function in the
stdlib, as long as the dunder attribute is there.

So I'm, once again, posing this question (that I don't think got any
reactions previously): Is there a significant audience for this new
function, or is it enough to keep it a private function for the stdlib
to use? That handful of third-party path libraries can decide for
themselves if they want to (a) reject bytes or (b) implicitly fsdecode
them or (c) pass them through just like str, depending on whatever
their case requires in terms of backwards compatiblity or other goals.

If we forget about the os.fswhatever function, we only have to decide
whether the magic dunder attribute can be str or bytes or just str.

-Koos