Peter Hansen wrote: > Duncan, are you another formerly non-user of path who has this opinion, > or have you already attempted to use path extensively in your code?
I'm a currently non-user of path who would probably use it if it were in the standard library but so far have been satisfied to use os.path. > I'm not saying I dismiss the opinions of those who haven't actually > tried working with a string-based path object, but it's worth > considering that you might adopt a different opinion after using it for > a while. I fully accept that. My point is simply that as a non-user, it sounds to me as though subclassing string is the wrong approach. I would have expected a path object to be a sequence of path elements rather than a sequence of characters. This is basically just a gut feeling though, so I'm perfectly happy to be told that I'm wrong. BTW, does it matter at all in practical use that the base class of path varies between str and unicode depending on the platform? John Roth wrote: > You have to start somewhere. One of the lessons that's beginning > to seep into people's minds is that getting something that works > out there is almost always preferable to (over) design by committee. Dead right, but once it goes into the standard library it has to pretty well stop evolving, so it needs to be right, or as close as possible before that happens. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
