Yeah, sure. But it was more like this on a single line:
os.missing1(str(our_path.something1)) ***
os.missing2(str(our_path.something1)) ***
os.missing1(str(our_path.something1))
And then it started to get messy because you need to work on a single
long line or you need to open more than one line.
It was a simple thing actually. Like repeating the same calls to pathlib
just because we need to switch to os.path.... I will ask my colleague if
he remembers or if we can recover the code tommorrow...
Best,
Sven
NOTE to myself: getting old, need to write down everything
On 06.04.2016 23:03, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 04/06/2016 01:47 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
I still cannot remember what the concrete issue was why we dropped
pathlib the same day we gave it a try. It was something really stupid
and although I hoped to reduce the size of the code, it was less
readable. But it was not the path->str issue but something more mundane.
It was something that forced us to use os[.path] as Path didn't provide
something equivalent. Cannot remember.....
I'm willing to guess that if you had been able to just call
os.whatever(your_path_obj)
it would have been at most a minor annoyance.
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
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/srkunze%40mail.de
_______________________________________________
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
