PEP on path module for standard library

[Fernando Perez]

Peter Hansen wrote:

> Michael Hoffman wrote:
>> For the PEP, do any of you have arguments for or against including path?
>> Code samples that are much easier or more difficult with this class
>> would also be most helpful.
> 
> I believe the strongest argument for "path" can be made for how it
> integrates functionality which, although closely related conceptually,
> is currently distributed across a half dozen or more different modules
> in the standard library.  Especially for newbies (I can only imagine, at
> this stage) it would make working with files much easier in a many ways.

+10

One of the few things that annoys me about the stdlib is what one could call
performing 'shell-scripting-like' tasks, and precisely because of the problem
you point out.  A number of conceptually related and common tasks are
scattered all over, and every time I need to write this kind of code, I find
myself paging over the docs for multiple modules, with no real intuition as to
where I could even guess where to find things.  This is very unusual for
python, where in most cases things are so well organized, that blind guessing
tends to work remarkably well.  

Personally I like the path module _a lot_, though I'm sure a thorough once-over
from c.l.py and python-dev, via a PEP, can only make it better and smooth out
hidden rough edges and corner cases.  But I'll be very happy if it does go
into the stdlib in the future.

Just my .02.

Best,

f