Despite the bug being closed as WONTFIX, at the very least this seems like a valid docs issue. But (for whatever a non-core-dev opinion is worth), I'm +1 both on the proposed solution and deprecation.of `link_to()`
Jim On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:45 AM Barney Gale <barney.g...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Pathlib's symlink_to() and link_to() methods have different argument > orders, so: > > a.symlink_to(b) # Creates a symlink from A to B > a.link_to(b) # Creates a hard link from B to A > > I don't think link_to() was intended to be implemented this way, as the > docs say "Create a hard link pointing to a path named target.". It's also > inconsistent with everything else in pathlib, most obviously symlink_to(). > > Bug report here: https://bugs.python.org/issue39291 > > This /really/ irks me. Apparently it's too late to fix link_to(), so I'd > like to suggest we add a new hardlink_to() method that matches the > symlink_to() argument order. link_to() then becomes deprecated/undocumented. > > Any thoughts? > > Barney > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/7QPLYW36ZK6QTW4SV4FI6C343KYWCPAT/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/5T2D3CUEC6E5PG3ZMLHMAI4N2B2NL7TI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
