BJörn Lindqvist wrote: > 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. :)
So...how's that post mortem coming along? Did you get a sufficient answer to your questions? And the more interesting question is, will the effort to reform Python's path functionality continue? From reading all the responses to your post, I feel that the community is on the whole supportive of the idea of refactoring os.path and friends, but they prefer a different approach; And several of the responses sketch out some suggestions for what that approach might be. So what happens next? -- Talin _______________________________________________ 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
