Note that alot of my previous pathlib bugfixes were partly in preparation for making this diff look OK! I was hoping to highlight thatPath and_Accessor are conceptually the same at present, and therefore shouldn't be split across two classes. I hope this diff makes that clear! Browsing by commit might be useful also.

I'm pretty sure thetest_glob_permissions test wasn't working properly. I had to add akey= argument tosorted() to make things play nice, which makes me think its patching ofos.scandir() wasn't visible to pathlib previously.

Bravo! I didn't realize yesterday with#25699 that it was temp code. I had seen your commits and misunderstood. I thought somehow your intent was to add a class in between Path and PurePath which leveraged moving all cwd, resolve, open, touch, into the accessor.

I had done some performance testing that move of cwd, resolve, open, touch into the accessor and noted that it resulted in a significant slow down doing so.

cwd()python3.9 -m timeit -r 5 -n 100000 -s 'from pathlib import Path' 'Path.cwd()'100000 loops, best of 5: 4.03 usec per looppython3.10-with-accessor -m timeit -r 5 -n 100000 -s 'from pathlib import Path' 'Path.cwd()'100000 loops, best of 5: 206 usec per loopresolve()python3.9 -m timeit -r 5 -n 50000 -s 'from pathlib import PosixPath' -s 'p = PosixPath("/usr/bin/python")' 'p.resolve()'50000 loops, best of 5: 15.4 usec per looppython3.10-with-accessor -m timeit -r 5 -n 50000 -s 'from pathlib import PosixPath' -s 'p = PosixPath("/usr/bin/python")' 'p.resolve()'50000 loops, best of 5: 429 usec per loopopen()python3.9 -m timeit -r 5 -n 100000 -s 'from pathlib import PosixPath' -s 'p = PosixPath("/var/tmp/tmpfile.txt")' 'with open(p, "w"): pass'100000 loops, best of 5: 14 usec per looppython3.10-with-accessor -m timeit -r 5 -n 100000 -s 'from pathlib import PosixPath' -s 'p = PosixPath("/var/tmp/tmpfile.txt")' 'with open(p, "w"): pass'100000 loops, best of 5: 163 usec per looptouch()python3.9 -m timeit -r 5 -n 100000 -s 'from pathlib import PosixPath' -s 'p = PosixPath("/var/tmp/tmpfile.txt")' 'p.touch()'100000 loops, best of 5: 1.89 usec per looppython3.10-with-accessor -m timeit -r 5 -n 100000 -s 'from pathlib import PosixPath' -s 'p = PosixPath("/var/tmp/tmpfile.txt")' 'p.touch()'100000 loops, best of 5: 26.1 usec per loop

I have to imagine that moving everything out will do the exact opposite and make all of these slow down go away and speed up all of the other functions that had used the accessor. That said, I'm just a guy out there who happens to be using pathlib, but I think this is brilliant.

Myself, I had been wondering about changing the name of accessor to common (or something similar) having also seen Pitrou's comment to you, since it seemed like a vestigial abstraction. But I like taking it out entirely even better. Remove the cruft and make it faster - this seems like a win!

Yep! And you'll note that theos functions in the resulting code are called fromonly onePath method. That's to facilitate us adding a newAbstractPath class that sits betweenPurePath andPath. Certain methods likestat() would be abstract, whereas derived methods likeexists() would not.

I'm also planning to perform an optimization pass, as I think there's a few_from_parts() tricks missed here and there that might have slowed things down slightly. Overall I'm expecting the changes to be performance-neutral.

@pitrou I think you wrote this code originally - do you have the time/inclination to review? Thanks so much!

@serhiy-storchaka As you improved the performance of globbing inbpo-26032, do you have any feedback on thePath.scandir() addition? Would you preferPath._scandir() for example? Thank you.

As forPath.scandir(), if you do not want to extend an API, do not add a public method. And if you want to add a new public method, it is a different issue which should be discussed separately (in particularly it should be shown an advantage over callingos.scandir()).

As forPath.scandir(), if you do not want to extend an API, do not add a public method. And if you want to add a new public method, it is a different issue which should be discussed separately (in particularly it should be shown an advantage over callingos.scandir()).

Thanks very much. I've renamed it to_scandir() as it can stay private for now.

I'll wait for#26153 to land before rebasing.

I've rebased this PR. I believe it's ready for core review!

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.

I'm still keen to land this if possible. Thanks!

Please avoid force push for future PRs, they make reviewing less pleasant:https://devguide.python.org/pullrequest/

Can you add a news entry? Can be just one line or two about removing an obsolete layer and preparing the terrain for upcoming enhancements.

Can you add a news entry? Can be just one line or two about removing an obsolete layer and preparing the terrain for upcoming enhancements.

I've added a news entry now. I used your wording as it seemed spot on to me!

Thank you for the reviews, everyone. If you can spare the time to continue reviewing this PR series, the next one is at#31085. Thanks so much!