Re:Python 3.4 Beta 1 Released
by avdd_ on Sunday November 24, 2013 @11:25PM
(#6792477)
No one objected to using "pure" instead of the more common "abstract" (which is the actual antonym of "concrete") ?? Why do people do this?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Concrete paths inherit from pure paths - this would be quite strange using antonyms. This isn't like an "abstract" base class. It's a full class on its own, which is extended by another.
Anyway, I think it's meant to be "pure" like pure functions, generally having no side effects or external inputs.
Re:Python 3.4 Beta 1 Released
by quesebifurcan on Monday November 25, 2013 @05:41AM
(#6793382)
i think so too. like it says in the docs: "Regardless of the system you’re running on, you can instantiate all of these classes, since they don’t provide any operation that does system calls." http://docs.python.org/3.4/library/pathlib.html#pure-paths