Provide method PurePath.quote() that calls shlex.quote

[cool-RR]

BPO	28817
Nosy	@pitrou, @cool-RR, @zware, @serhiy-storchaka

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2016-11-28.13:59:16.429>
created_at = <Date 2016-11-28.10:41:44.390>
labels = ['3.7', 'type-feature', 'library']
title = 'Provide method PurePath.quote() that calls shlex.quote'
updated_at = <Date 2016-11-28.13:59:16.426>
user = 'https://github.com/cool-RR'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2016-11-28.13:59:16.426>
actor = 'zach.ware'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2016-11-28.13:59:16.429>
closer = 'zach.ware'
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2016-11-28.10:41:44.390>
creator = 'cool-RR'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 28817
keywords = []
message_count = 3.0
messages = ['281858', '281859', '281876']
nosy_count = 4.0
nosy_names = ['pitrou', 'cool-RR', 'zach.ware', 'serhiy.storchaka']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'rejected'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue28817'
versions = ['Python 3.7']

[cool-RR]

I have a a PurePath object like so:

    path = PurePath('/home/my awesome user/file.txt')

I'm SSHing into a server and I want to remove the file. So I have to do this:

ssh_client.run(f'/bin/rm {shlex.quote(str(path))}')

Which is really long and ugly.

I suggested in bpo-28623 that shlex.quote could just take a Path argument, and in bpo-28811 that __str__ would use shlex.quote, and it was rejected too.

My next suggestion: Implement PurePath.quote() method that calls shlex.quote() on the path. What do you think?

[serhiy-storchaka]

Please no. The interface of pathlib is already overburdened. We shouldn't add every function that is applicable to string paths as a Path method.

[zware]

You already have a short, simple, one-line solution, and have had suggestions for shortening it yourself if you absolutely need to do so. If you can provide proof that this is an extremely common use case (and considering how short the solution already is, it would need to be completely ubiquitous), we might reconsider this, but in the absence of such proof these suggestions are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.