Re: PEP 420 issue: extend_path

On 05/09/2012 08:23 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> But if case 3 were changed to (None, None), then I wouldn't need to call
>> len(), and it could be any iterable returning strings in case 2. What
>> are your thoughts on making case 3 (None, None)? I sort of like it.
> 
> +1.  So the formal spec would be that the second item can be "any iterable
> returning strings, or None".  I suspect implementations that want to be
> maximally Postel would accept any false-ish value instead of exactly None.

Well, see the python-ideas discussion of false datetime.time versus None!

>> For case 1, I'm currently returning "<don't care>" part as an empty
>> string.

Oops, I meant "empty list".

> I think it should be documented as 'ignored' when the first argument is not
> None.

Okay.

Eric.