On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 08:00, Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> On 17/05/22 4:58 am, Christopher Barker wrote:
> > if you want to call your collection of files a single resource, then
> > sure -- but then it's not the directory that's the resource, it's the
> > collection of files that's the resource
>
>
On 17/05/22 4:58 am, Christopher Barker wrote:
if you want to call your collection of files a single resource, then
sure -- but then it's not the directory that's the resource, it's the
collection of files that's the resource
Sure, but why am I not allowed to use the name of the directory as
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:38 AM Greg Werbin
wrote:
> Non-"binary" resources are already in widespread use,
I didn't write the docs -- but a text file is, indeed a binary blob -- it
only becomes text when it is read and decoded, so there is no distinction
at this level. I *think* the idea
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 11:57 PM Greg Ewing
wrote:
> On 16/05/22 5:05 pm, Christopher Barker wrote:
> > a directory is not a binary artifact -- it can't have actually data in
> > it like a file can.
>
> and:
>
> > the entire
> > point of resources is to provide an abstraction -- the individual
>
Non-"binary" resources are already in widespread use, so perhaps that
requirement shouldn't be in the docs at all. In practice, a resource is "any
data file other than a Python source file."
Moreover, I see no reason why a resource name in general shouldn't be allowed
to contain a "/"
On 16/05/22 5:05 pm, Christopher Barker wrote:
a directory is not a binary artifact -- it can't have actually data in
it like a file can.
and:
the entire
point of resources is to provide an abstraction -- the individual
resources may not be files on disk at all
These two statements are
