On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:39 PM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 19:24:44 -0000, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 at 12:10 Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> >> > wrote: >> > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Koos Zevenhoven <k7ho...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > __pathstr__ # pathstring >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> Or perhaps __pathstring__ in case it may be or return byte strings. > > But there are other paths than OS file system paths. I prefer > __fspath__ or __os_path__ myself. I think the fact that it is a string > is implied by the fact that it is getting us the thing we can pass > to the os (since Python3 deals with os paths as strings unless you > specify otherwise, only converting them back to bytes, on unix, at the last > moment). > > Heh, although I suppose one could make the argument that it should > return whatever the native OS wants, and save the low level code > from having to do that? Pass the path object all the way down > to that "final step" in the C layer? (Just ignore me, I'm sure > I'm only making trouble :)
My favorites are fspath and pathname, and since this is a dunder methdod, it is not as crucial what it is called. I have the feeling the consensus is converging towards fspath? I'll comment on the bytes issue in the other thread. Boy these threads are all over the place! -Koos _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
