On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:48:45 +0200, Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> An improvement to what? To how the class is implemented, or to how >> it is used? > >No, the second function is cleaner and more readable than the first, >IMHO.
True, but the first function, at all of seven lines, is hardly complicated. I mean, if anyone couldn't understand it, they'd never make a programmer. >> If you mean the former, yes is it, due to the os.path module not >> providing a function that does this. >> >> If you mean the latter, I disagree, because I would then have to >> call it with something like: >> >> pn = normalizePath(Path(p), q) > >That's easily helped by s/tp = p/tp = Path(p)/. I have no idea what that comment means. >> and then I would have the problem that (pn) isn't a string so >> calling a function to write some data into the file at that filename >> would no longer work, i.e. this: >> >> writeFile(pn, someData) >> >> would become this: >> >> writeFile(pn.getString(), someData) > >Why? A Path is a string. Aha, having read about path on the web, I know that now. I also withdraw my objections; it looks like it could well have been useful on some of the projects I've worked on. -- Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
