On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > [...] we can't do: > > app_root = Path(...) > config = app_root/'settings.cfg' > with open(config) as blah: > # whatever > > It feels like instead of addressing this basic disconnect, the answer has > instead been: add that to pathlib! Which works great -- until a user or a > library gets this path object and tries to use something from os on it.
I agree that asking for config.open() isn't the right answer here (even if it happens to work). But in this example, once 3.5.2 is out, the solution would be to use open(config.path), and that will also work when passing it to a library. Is it still unacceptable then? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
