Peter Hansen:
> Compelling to whom? I wonder if it's even possible for Guido to find
> compelling anything which obsoletes much of os.path and shutil and
> friends (modules which Guido probably added first and has used the most
> and feels most comfortable with).
To me, most uses of path.py are small incremental improvements over
os.path rather than being compelling. Do a number of small improvements
add up to be large enough to make this change? There is a cost to the
change as there will be two libraries that have to be known to
understand code. Does someone have an example application that moved to
path.py with a decrease in errors or noticeable decrease in complexity?
Could all path manipulation code be switched or is coverage incomplete?
The duplication argument should be answered by looking at all the
relevant modules and finding a coherent set of features that work with
path.py without overlap so that the obsolete methods can be deprecated.
If adding path.py leads to a fuzzy overlapping situation where os.path
is occasionally useful then we are complicating the user's life rather
than simplifying it.
Neil
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
