On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:43:29PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 at 04:00 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> [...]
>> > I think it is a bit confusing to refer to "path objects", as that seems
>> > like you are referring only to
On Fri, 13 May 2016 at 10:53 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:43:29PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2016 at 04:00 Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > - but os.fspath() will only return str;
> > > - and os.fspathb() will only return bytes;
>
> > I prefer wh
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:43:29PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2016 at 04:00 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
> > - but os.fspath() will only return str;
> > - and os.fspathb() will only return bytes;
> I prefer what's in the PEP. I get where you coming from, Steven, but I
> don't th
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> I would say use `type(x).__fspath__`. I'm not aware of any other
> __dunder__ method that doesn't access the attribute from the type instead
> of the instance, and I see no point in making this one different.
>
Agreed.
--
--Guido van Ross
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> On 05/13/2016 06:21 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Really, if you want bytes, you should use os.fsencode(); if you want
> strings, use os.fsencode(); if you want to be polymorphic, use os.fspath()
> and check the type it returns.
>
>
>
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> I would say use `type(x).__fspath__`. I'm not aware of any other __dunder__
> method that doesn't access the attribute from the type instead of the
> instance, and I see no point in making this one different.
>
__reduce__ / __reduce_ex__ in
On 05/13/2016 06:21 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Really, if you want bytes, you should use os.fsencode(); if you want
strings, use os.fsencode(); if you want to be polymorphic, use
os.fspath() and check the type it returns.
Am I severely misunderstanding the API, or did you mean "if you want
On 05/13/2016 08:43 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
a minor technical query:
try:
return path.__fspath__()
Would I be right in saying that in practice this will actually end up
being type(path).__fspath__() to match the behaviour of all(?) other
dunder methods?
I wasn't planning
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Counter suggestion:
>
> - __fspath__() method may return either bytes or str (no change
> from the PEP as it stands now);
>
> - but os.fspath() will only return str;
>
> - and os.fspathb() will only return bytes;
>
> - there is no os func
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:53:12PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > Second draft that takes Guido's comments into consideration. The biggest
> > change is os.fspath() now returns whatever path.__fspath__() returns
> > instead of restrictin
On Fri, 13 May 2016 at 04:00 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:53:12PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > Second draft that takes Guido's comments into consideration. The biggest
> > change is os.fspath() now returns whatever path.__fspath__() returns
> > instead of restricting it
On Fri, May 13, 2016, at 07:00, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> - but os.fspath() will only return str;
>
> - and os.fspathb() will only return bytes;
And raise an exception if __fspath__ returns the other, I suppose.
What's the use case for these functions? When would I call them rather
than fsdecode a
> - there is no os function that returns "str or bytes, I don't
> care which". (If you really need that, call __fspath__ directly.)
os.fspath() in the PEP works when given str or bytes directly, but those
don't have a __fspath__ method, so directly calling the dunder method is not
equivalent to
Thanks Brett!
Now one thing is that, despite your suggestion, I had not added myself
as an author in my big pull request. Originally, it was because I
simply forgot to copy and paste it when I split my edits into separate
commits ;-). Sorry about that (not sure if you care though, and I've
been de
On 13 May 2016 at 21:00, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:53:12PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> Second draft that takes Guido's comments into consideration. The biggest
>> change is os.fspath() now returns whatever path.__fspath__() returns
>> instead of restricting it to only
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Cons:
> (3) Polymorphic code that truly doesn't care whether it gets bytes or
> str will have a slightly less convenient way of getting it, namely by
> calling __fspath__() itself, instead of os.fspath().
I don't like this; it goes against
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:53:12PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Second draft that takes Guido's comments into consideration. The biggest
> change is os.fspath() now returns whatever path.__fspath__() returns
> instead of restricting it to only str.
Counter suggestion:
- __fspath__() method may r
On 13 May 2016 at 06:53, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Second draft that takes Guido's comments into consideration. The biggest
> change is os.fspath() now returns whatever path.__fspath__() returns instead
> of restricting it to only str.
>
> Minor changes:
> - Renamed the C function to PyOS_FSPath()
> -
18 matches
Mail list logo
