The thread on python-dev with respect to PEP 355 seems to have died out,
so I thought it might be a good time to move things over here.
What I'd like to do is to start by examining the most fundamental
assumptions about refactoring os.path and the various other path-related
functions. Before we
> Is anybody working [on a] PEP?
This has gone unanswered for several days, so I wanted to mention that
Ka-Ping Yee said in an off-list email from mid-October that he is
indeed working on a PEP for this, but it would take a while due to
other priorities.
Mike
__
Talin wrote:
> 1) Does os.path need to be refactored at all?
Yes. Functions are scattered arbitrarily across six modules: os,
os.path, shutil, stat, glob, fnmatch. You have to search through five
scattered doc pages in the Python library to find your function, plus
the os module doc is split int
Mike Orr wrote:
> You may think 'shutil' has to do with shells, not paths.
well, it has; it provides Python implementations of selected shell commands.
> Why is 'split' in os.path but 'stat' and 'mkdir' and 'remove' are in
> os? Don't they all operate on paths?
no. are you saying that you'
Mike Orr wrote:
> Talin wrote:
>> 1) Does os.path need to be refactored at all?
>
> Yes. Functions are scattered arbitrarily across six modules: os,
> os.path, shutil, stat, glob, fnmatch. You have to search through five
> scattered doc pages in the Python library to find your function, plus
> t
