On 11/8/22, Charles Machalow <csm10...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Funny enough in PowerShell, for prints an "l" for both symlinks and > junctions.. so it kind of thinks of it as a link of some sort too I guess.
As does Python already in many cases. For example, os.lstat() doesn't traverse a mount point (junction). On Windows, symlinks and mount points are in a general category of name-surrogate reparse points. os.lstat() doesn't traverse them. If Python supported copying a mount point via os.symlink(os.readlink(src), dst), I'd be reluctantly in favor of just letting ntpath.islink() return true for a mount point, as a practical measure for seamless cross-platform implementations of functions like rmtree() and copytree(). In terms of POSIX that's nonsense, but not really on Windows. > Is it that much of a waste to just return False on posix? I mean it's a > couple lines and just maintains api.. and in theory can be more clear to > some. I'm just thinking this through in terms of conceptual cost and usefulness in the standard library relative to how easy it is to implement one's own isjunction() or is_name_surrogate() test. Of course, a lot of the os.path tests have simple implementations, such as exists(), isdir() and isfile(). They're in the standard library because they're commonly needed. The question is whether isjunction() is needed enough generally to justify adding it. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/G4YQTXFPDN5YQLNYUUKCP2NV4DLGWSTN/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
