Raymond Hettinger added the comment: > Changes LGTM.
Thanks for the review :-) > This module could certainly use some cleanup and updates. Yes, the API is a mess, but I would like to be very conservative with API modifications (preferably none at all) so we don't break the code of very few people who ever cared enough to use this module. My goal here was just to fix the risk of a false positives. > For example, last_changed should be a property and always > accessed one way (instead of either .mtime() or .last_changed) > and should be initialized to None instead of zero to avoid ambiguity, It's too late for fixing the published API. The time for that was when the module was introduced. > and the and/or trick should be replaced with if/else. Yes, would be a reasonable minor clean-up that wouldn't affect the API. > Would anyone review such a patch if I created one? Yes. Just add the one-line patch to this tracker item and I'll incorporate it with the rest. FWIW, it is perfectly reasonable to add new well-designed API extensions. You can post patches to the open tracker items for Bug 16099 and Bug 21475. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21469> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
