On 29 June 2014 12:08, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is what makes me wary of including lstat, even though Windows
> offers it without the extra stat call. Caching behaviour is *really*
> hard to make intuitive, especially when it *sometimes* returns data
> that looks fresh (as it on first call on POSIX systems).

If it matters that much we *could* simply call it cached_lstat(). It's
ugly, but I really don't like the idea of throwing the information
away - after all, the fact that we currently throw data away is why
there's even a need for scandir. Let's not make the same mistake
again...

Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to