Message152880
| Author |
eli.bendersky |
| Recipients |
eli.bendersky, eric.araujo, giampaolo.rodola, ncoghlan, pitrou, ubershmekel |
| Date |
2012年02月08日.16:15:07 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.029407e-09 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<CAF-Rda9VVmJgc-a-qRxopXeB3SDe+C0F+ZnOxXj+-__PX0dmvw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1328717232.3387.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| Content |
>> Google "walk directory". First hit is a Rosetta code page with
>> *recursive* walking implemented in various languages. So I guess it
>> does have this connotation. Regardless, os.walk has been in Python for
>> ages, and it's always been the go-to tool for recursive traversal.
>> walkdir's name suggests the same.
>
> You still haven't explained what your problem is with the idea of an
> explicitly recursive glob (as both "rglob" and "globtree" suggest).
>
The problem is that I prefer the walkdir approach, because it solves a
more general problem and overall more useful. This is also why I don't
see how it makes sense to stop discussing it here and focus on rglob.
They are related, after all!
Anyway, I'm not sure what else I can add to the discussion. I'm
starting to repeat myself, which means that I should just shut up :)
I've stated my preference, and I understand and respect yours. So
let's just see what others think. |
|