David Barnett added the comment:
The idiom of
pathlib.Path.cwd() / pathlib.Path('some/path')
isn't too bad of an approach if it could just be mentioned in the docs. I would
intuitively expected something like
pathlib.Path('some/path').resolve(follow_symlinks=False)
My use case was that I had an equality check like this failing:
expected_path = pathlib.Path.cwd() / pathlib.Path('some/path')
pathlib.Path('some/path') == expected_path
I suppose I should file that as a separate bug because semantically those paths
are equal, but I was trying to work around it like
pathlib.Path('some/path').resolve() == expected_path
which in my case still failed because some/path was a symlink.
Even if that's fixed, I would still expect to run into cases where I wanted to
print specifically the relative or absolute path in informational messages and
would not want to follow symlinks (e.g., in "Requested path X not found", the
user would recognize the absolute path as the one they entered but not
necessarily the symlink-resolved version).
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue25012>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
