On 9 April 2016 at 02:02, Koos Zevenhoven <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm still thinking a little bit about 'pathname', which to me sounds > more like a string than fspath does [1]. It would be nice to have the > string/path distinction especially when pathlib adoption grows larger. > But who knows, maybe somewhere in the far future, no-one will care > much about fspath, fsencode, fsdecode or os.path.
Ah, I like it - adding the "name" suffix nicely distinguishes the protocol from the rich path objects in pathlib. I'll catch up on Ethan's dedicated naming thread before commenting further, though :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com