On 01/25/2017 04:04 PM, Todd wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm just going to let fly with the +1s and -1s, don't take them too
seriously, they're basically impressionistic (I'm not a huge user of
pathlib yet).
Todd writes:
> So although the names are tentative, perhaps there could be a
"fullsuffix"
> property to return the extensions as a single string,
-0 '.'.join(p.suffixes) vs. p.fullsuffix? TOOWTDI says no. I
also don't really see the use case.
The whole point of pathlib is to provide convenience functions for
common path-related operations. It is full of methods and properties
that could be implemented other ways.
Dealing with multi-part extensions, at least for me, is extremely
common. A ".tar.gz" file is not the same as a ".tar.bz2" or a
".svg.gz". When I want to find a ".tar.gz" file, having to deal with
the ".tar" and ".gz" parts separately is nothing but a nuisance. If I
want to find and extract ".rar" files, I don't want ".part1.rar" files,
".part2.rar" files, and so on. So for me dealing with the extension as
a single unit, rather than individual parts, is the most common approach.
But what if the .tar.gz file is called "spam-4.2.5-final.tar.gz"?
Existing tools like glob and endswith() can deal with the ".tar.gz"
extension reliably, but "fullsuffix" would, arguably, not give the
answers you want.
Perhaps more specialized tools would be useful, though, for example:
repacked_path = original_path.replace_suffix(".tar.gz", ".zip")
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
