On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:06:37 +0200 Charles-Fran?ois Natali wrote:
2013/9/16 Antoine Pitrou <email@example.com
Le Sun, 15 Sep 2013 06:46:08 -0700,
Ethan Furman <firstname.lastname@example.org
> a ?crit :
I see PEP 428 is both targeted at 3.4 and still in draft status.
What remains to be done to ask for pronouncement?
I think I have a couple of items left to integrate in the PEP.
Mostly it needs me to take a bit of time and finalize the PEP, and
then have a PEP delegate (or Guido) pronounce on it.
IIRC, during the last discussion round, we were still debating between
implicit stat() result caching - which requires an explicit restat()
method - vs a mapping between the stat() method and a stat() syscall.
What was the conclusion?
No definite conclusion. You and Nick liked the idea of a rich stat
object (returned by os.stat()) with is_dir() methods and the like:https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-May/125809.html
However, nothing was done about that since then ;-)
There was also the scandir() proposal to return rich objects with
optional stat-like fields, but similarly it didn't get a conclusion:https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-May/126119.html
So I would like to propose the following API change:
- Path.stat() (and stat-accessing methods such as get_mtime()...)
returns an uncached stat object by default
- Path.cache_stat() can be called to return the stat() *and* cache it
for future use, such that any future call to stat(), cache_stat() or
a stat-accessing function reuses that cached stat
In other words, only if you use cache_stat() at least once is the
stat() value cached and reused by the Path object.
(also, it's a per-Path decision)