Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote: > Michael Hoffman wrote: >>What do you gain from removing these methods? A smaller dir()? > > It made sense to me at the time I changed this, although at the moment > I can't exactly recall the reasons.
Along with some of the others (and as a fairly heavy user of "path"), I would caution strongly against jumping to do make this change. Given that a strong part of the justification for path's inclusion in the standard library (as expressed here in the past) is that it is stable and widely used, making such a fundamental change at this late stage just prior to its possible acceptance seems to me very risky. I have noticed in a number of cases where a "path" was usable as a drop-in replacement for strings that previously contained paths. I can't say for sure, but I strongly suspect some of that could would be broken if "paths" weren't basestrings. I'll attempt to check in my own code. Even if those uses don't actually break, it can *also* be useful to have the string methods available on a path object, so I'm also uncertain what you gain by removing that connection, though it's clear what things you might be losing. -2 for this idea. -Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
