"Reinhold Birkenfeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > John Roth wrote: >> "Michael Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Many of you are familiar with Jason Orendorff's path module >>> <http://www.jorendorff.com/articles/python/path/>, which is frequently >>> recommended here on c.l.p. I submitted an RFE to add it to the Python >>> standard library, and Reinhold Birkenfeld started a discussion on it in >>> python-dev >>> <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-June/054438.html>. >>> >>> The upshot of the discussion was that many python-dev'ers wanted path >>> added to the stdlib, but Guido was not convinced and said it must have a >>> PEP. >> >> Why did Guido want a PEP? Is it because he likes the idea but >> feels the feature set needs to be examined a bit more by the wider >> community, or is it some other reason? > > He said, > > """ > Whoa! Do we really need a completely different mechanism for doing the > same stuff we can already do? The path module seems mostly useful for > folks coming from Java who are used to the Java Path class. With the > massive duplication of functionality we should also consider what to > recommend for the future: will the old os.path module be deprecated, > or are we going to maintain both alternatives forever? (And what about > all the duplication with the os module itself, like the cwd() > constructor?) Remember TOOWTDI. > """
Read literally, this says (at least to me) "I don't want to fix it because I don't think it's broke." As far as the Java remark is concerned, I suspect that it's because in Java there is no such thing as a function; everything is either a method on an object or a static method on a class. And as far as I'm concerned, it's broke. I could see getting rid of the bits and pieces of procedural code in 3.0, but not sooner. John Roth > > Reinhold -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
