Message147390
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
amaury.forgeotdarc, benjamin.peterson, krisys, ncoghlan, pitrou, rhettinger |
| Date |
2011年11月10日.02:45:43 |
| SpamBayes Score |
1.0504254e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1320893144.76.0.939479990555.issue13375@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Why provide any namedtuple interface in any context? After all, you can just unpack them to individual variables.
The point is that the values produced by os.walk() *aren't* just an arbitrary 3-tuple - they have a definite API for describing a directory: the base path, then lists of relative names for any subdirectories and the relative names for any files. Why not make that explicit in the objects produced instead of leaving it as merely implied?
This idea actually came out of the proposal for providing an itertools-inspired toolset for manipulating the output of os.walk() style iteration (#13229 and https://bitbucket.org/ncoghlan/walkdir/overview).
I'll be adding this feature to walkdir regardless, but it seems to make more sense to offer it as standard behaviour. |
|