Re: [Python-Dev] Removing the provisional label from pathlib

2016-05-24 Thread Koos Zevenhoven
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> 3.5 is still getting bugfixes: >> https://docs.python.org/devguide/#status-of-python-branches >> >> As for backporting __fspath__() for pathlib, you can easily write your own >> sub

Re: [Python-Dev] Removing the provisional label from pathlib

2016-05-24 Thread Barry Warsaw
On May 24, 2016, at 02:03 PM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: >I guess we might consider adding __fspath__ in maintenance releases, >and make open() support it? That would cover a significant share of >use cases, although it might be weird if code written for 3.5.2 >doesn't run on 3.5.1... Please, no. We

Re: [Python-Dev] Removing the provisional label from pathlib

2016-05-24 Thread Koos Zevenhoven
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On May 24, 2016, at 02:03 PM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: > >>I guess we might consider adding __fspath__ in maintenance releases, >>and make open() support it? That would cover a significant share of >>use cases, although it might be weird if code

Re: [Python-Dev] Removing the provisional label from pathlib

2016-05-24 Thread Paul Moore
On 24 May 2016 at 15:11, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: >> Please, no. We learned that lesson in Python 2.2.1 with True/False. > > What happened? True was included in 2.2.1 but not False?-). Anyway, I > guess you are probably right, and "3.6->" is the way to go. Besides, > Guido already wrote that in the

Re: [Python-Dev] Removing the provisional label from pathlib

2016-05-24 Thread Terry Reedy
On 5/24/2016 10:49 AM, Paul Moore wrote: On 24 May 2016 at 15:11, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: Please, no. We learned that lesson in Python 2.2.1 with True/False. What happened? True was included in 2.2.1 but not False?-). Anyway, I guess you are probably right, and "3.6->" is the way to go. Besid