On 10/1/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/30/06, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be terrific if you gave us some clue about what is wrong in > > PEP355, so > > that the next guy does not waste his time. For instance, I find PEP355 > > incredibly good for my own path manipulation (much cleaner and concise than > > the > > awful os.path+os+shutil+stat mix), and I have trouble understanding what is > > *so* wrong with it. > > > > You said "it's an amalgam of unrelated functionality", but you didn't say > > what > > exactly is "unrelated" for you. > > Sorry, no time. But others in this thread clearly agreed with me, so > they can guide you.
I'd like to write a post mortem for PEP 355. But one important question that haven't been answered is if there is a possibility for a path-like PEP to succeed in the future? If so, does the path-object implementation have to prove itself in the wild before it can be included in Python? From earlier posts it seems like you don't like the concept of path objects, which others have found very interesting. If that is the case, then it would be nice to hear it explicitly. :) -- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
