Carl Banks wrote:
> I don't know if it was the reason it was rejected, but a seriously
> divisive question is whether the path should be a subset of string.
OMG that's nothing but the OO "circle vs ellipse" non-question. Glad
to see the Committee derailed a perfectly good library over such
sophistry.
> Under ordinary circumstances it would be a poor choice for inheritance
> (only a few string methods would be useful fot a pathname), but some
> people were fiercely adamant that paths should be passable to open()
> as-in (without having to explicity convert to string).
That's just silly. To be object-based, you should say path.open('r').
fopen() and its ilk are too 1960s...
My 5th Grade science teacher, one Eunice Feight, once expressed
chagrin for submitting a proposal to Readers' Digest, and getting it
accepted. She sold them the following sloka:
Don't be clever don't be witty
Or you'll wind up BEING the Committee!
--
Phlip
http://penbird.tumblr.com/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
