On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 18:12:35 -0500, Skip Montanaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> PEP 304 would have helped, but it appears to be deceased. > >Just resting... > >FWIW, I reapplied it to my cvs sandbox the other day and plan to at least >generate a new patch from that. It's pretty much done, except... Once upon >a time, someone identified some problems for Windows with its multiple-root >file system. I've tried a couple times to dig it up, but have been >unsuccessful. If anyone can find it (or was the author, better yet), let me >know. At the very least I'd like to amend the PEP. Ideally, I'd like to >solve the problem and get PEP 304 going again. > Re multiple-root... IMO it would be nice to have an optional way of running python so that all file system paths would be normalized to Unix-style and platform-independent. On a windows system, the model used by msys/MinGW could be used, where you can mount subtrees per fstab and the "drives" wind up being /c/path for C:\path etc. And you could potentially mount different file systems also, including /proc and /dev synthetic things. On unix it could largely be pass-throughs, IWT, except for mountable file system objects written in pure python which would probably need some interfacing help. This would also be a potential way of feeding/logging tests of software that accesses the file system, using special mountable testing file systems. It also lets you switch I/O sources and sinks with mounts that are external to a particular python program being run. Don't know how factorable all that is in python, but I would think the bulk would be changes in os and hopefully pretty transparent elsewhere. Regards, Bengt Richter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
