Hello,
On Sun, 24 May 2020 08:38:22 -0300
Bernardo Sulzbach <berna...@bernardosulzbach.com> wrote:
> "So I implemented `PurePath.__len__` as `str(len(path))`." Sure you
> meant len(str(path)), right?
>
> "Serhiy and Remi objected, because it might not be obvious that the
> length of the path would be the length of string." I find this
> _really_ unintuitive. If anything, I would expect len(p) to be the
> "depth" of the path, which doesn't make a lot of sense if it is not
> an absolute path.
Rather, number of components in a path. E.g. length of Path("../a") is
2.
>
> It is a -1 from me because, besides what I outlined above, if you
> need the length of the string representation, len(str(p)) is quite
> short and obvious already.
I fully agree. For people who find string representation of paths to be
nice, there's an obvious choice of not using pathlib in the first
place, no confusion ensues. And people who choose to use pathlib,
should not look for ways to cheat by conflating strings and Path
objects with confusing implicit conversions (which will bite people
who will need to work with such a code later).
--
Best regards,
Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/QEBSDBPYMOBQDLYEJ7TR6LMLPSFF5OUA/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
