Path object design

glyphdivmod.com wrote:
> On 10:06 am, g.brandlgmx.net wrote:
>  >What a successor to os.path needs is not security,
it's a better (more 
> pythonic,
>  >if you like) interface to the old functionality.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I assert that it needs a better[1] interface because
the current 
> interface can lead to a variety of bugs through
idiomatic, apparently 
> correct usage.  All the more because many of those bugs
are related to 
> critical errors such as security and data integrity.

AFAICS, people just want an interface that is easier to use
and feels more...
err... (trying to avoid the p-word). I've never seen
security arguments
being made in this discussion.

> If I felt the current interface did a good job at doing
the right thing 
> in the right situation, but was cumbersome to use, I
would strenuously 
> object to _any_ work taking place to change it.  This
is a hard API to 
> get right.

Well, it's hard to change any running system with that
attitude. It doesn't
have to be changed if nobody comes up with something that's
agreed (*) to
be better.

(*) agreed in the c.l.py sense, of course

Georg

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Devpython.org
ht
tp://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/p
ython-dev/nessto%40sharedlog.com