one little note: On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> 4. There are further improvements that could be made to pathlib, > certainly, but again they are optional, and pathlib is fine without > them. > Exactly -- "improvements to pathlib" and "make the stdlib pathlib compatible" are completely orthogonal. > 5. I wish more 3rd party code integrated better with pathlib. The > improved integration work might help with this. But ultimately, Python > 2 compatibility is likely to be the biggest block (either perceived or > real - we can make pathlib support as simple as possible, but some 3rd > party authors will remain unwilling to add support for Python 3 only > features in the short term). This isn't a pathlib problem. > true -- though the proposed protocol approach opens doors there -- any third party lib can check for a __whatever_it's_called__ and run fine in py2 or py3 or, indeed, any version of python. Also if you really don't like pathlib, then the protocol allows you to write/use a different path implementation -- really win-win. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception [email protected]
_______________________________________________ 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