Message152873
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
eli.bendersky, eric.araujo, giampaolo.rodola, ncoghlan, pitrou, ubershmekel |
| Date |
2012年02月08日.15:52:05 |
| SpamBayes Score |
1.1215726e-09 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1328716158.3387.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<1328715801.22.0.217839127365.issue13968@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> IOW, globbing is usually understood as the act of expanding a pattern
> to the files it matches. Nothing in that implies recursive traversal
> of a directory tree.
Still, that's a common need. "I want all Python files in a subtree".
> On the other hand, os.walk and/or walkdir suggest that in their name.
I don't know why "walk" is supposedly more recursive than "glob".
> Admittedly, we already have more than one, and a high-level tool is
> proposed with Nick's walkdir. Why add *yet another* high-level tool?
Because the walkdir spelling (IIUC) is longish, tedious and awkward.
I could see myself typing "rglob('*.py')" in a short script or an
interpreter session, without having to look up any kind of docs.
Certainly not the walkdir alternative (I've already forgotten what it
is). |
|