> On Apr 11, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > > name: > ---- > > We are down to two choices: > > - __fspath__, or > - __fspathname__ > > The final choice I suspect will be affected by the choice to allow (or not) > bytes.
+1 on __fspath__, -0 on __fspathname__ > > > > add a Path ABC: > -------------- > > undecided I think it makes sense to add it, but maybe only in 3.6? Path accepting code could be updated to do something like `isinstance(obj, (bytes, str, PathMeta))` which seems like a net win to me. > > > Sticking points: > --------------- > > Do we allow bytes to be returned from os.fspath()? If yes, then do we allow > bytes from __fspath__()? I think yes and yes, it seems like making it needlessly harder to deal with a bytes path in the scenarios that you’re actually dealing with them is the kind of change that 3.0 made that ended up getting rolled back where it could. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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
