On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:53:01AM -0700, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov>
wrote:
> Back in the day, paths were "just strings", and that worked OK with
> py2 strings, because you could put arbitrary bytes in them. But the "py2
> strings were perfect" folks seem to not acknowledge that while they are
> nice for matching the posix filename model, they were a pain in the neck
> when you needed to do somethign else like write them in to a JSON file or
> something.
This is the core of the problem. Python2 favors Unix model but
Windows people pays the price. Python3 reverses that and I'm still
thinking if I want to pay the new price.
> So will using a surrogate-escape error handling with pathlib make all this
> just work?
I'm involved in developing and maintaining a few big commercial
projects that will hardly be ported to Python3. So I'm stuck with
Python2 for many years and I haven't tried Python3. May be I should try
a small personal project, but certainly not this year. May be the next
one...
Oleg.
--
Oleg Broytman http://phdru.name/ p...@phdru.name
Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
