Re: [Python-Dev] Updates to PEP 471, the os.scandir() proposal

On 07/09/2014 09:02 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 9 Jul 2014 17:14, "Ethan Furman" wrote: I like the 'onerror' API better primarily because it gives a single point to deal with the errors. [...] The "onerror" approach can also deal with readdir failing, which the PEP currently glosses over. D

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3121, 384 Refactoring Issues

On 07/10/2014 04:57 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: I'm just curious as to why there are 54 open issues after both of these PEPs have been accepted and 384 is listed as finished. Did we hit some unforeseen technical problem which stalled d

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3121, 384 Refactoring Issues

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > I'm just curious as to why there are 54 open issues after both of these > PEPs have been accepted and 384 is listed as finished. Did we hit some > unforeseen technical problem which stalled development? I tried to bring some sanity to tha

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3121, 384 Refactoring Issues

I don't know the details, but I suspect that was the result of my general guideline "don't start projects cleaning up lots of stdlib code just to satisfy some new style rule or just to use a new API" -- which came from hard-won experience where such a cleanup project introduced some new bugs that w

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3121, 384 Refactoring Issues

[for those that don't know, 3121 is extension module inti/finalization and 384 is the stable ABI] On Thu Jul 10 2014 at 3:47:03 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > I'm just curious as to why there are 54 open issues after both of these > PEPs have been accepted and 384 is listed as finished. Did we hit

[Python-Dev] PEP 3121, 384 Refactoring Issues

I'm just curious as to why there are 54 open issues after both of these PEPs have been accepted and 384 is listed as finished. Did we hit some unforeseen technical problem which stalled development? For these and any other open issues if you need some Windows testing doing please feel free to

Re: [Python-Dev] Updates to PEP 471, the os.scandir() proposal

On 07/10/2014 06:58 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: The info we want for scandir is that of the *link itself*. That makes it easy to implement things like the "followlinks" flag of os.walk. The *far end* of the link isn't relevant at this level. This also mirrors listdir, correct? scandir is simply*

Re: [Python-Dev] Updates to PEP 471, the os.scandir() proposal

>> DirEntry methods will remain free (no syscall) for directories and >> regular files. One extra syscall will be needed only for symlinks, >> which are more rare than other file types (for example, you wrote " >> Windows typically makes little use of symlinks"). > > The info we want for scandir is

Re: [Python-Dev] Updates to PEP 471, the os.scandir() proposal

On 10 Jul 2014 03:39, "Victor Stinner" wrote: > > 2014-07-10 9:04 GMT+02:00 Paul Moore : > > As someone (Tim?) pointed out later in the thread, > > FindFirstFile/FindNextFile doesn't follow symlinks by default (and nor > > do the dirent entries on Unix). So whether or not it's "natural", the > > "

Re: [Python-Dev] Updates to PEP 471, the os.scandir() proposal

2014-07-10 9:04 GMT+02:00 Paul Moore : > As someone (Tim?) pointed out later in the thread, > FindFirstFile/FindNextFile doesn't follow symlinks by default (and nor > do the dirent entries on Unix). So whether or not it's "natural", the > "free" functionality provided by the OS is that of lstat, no

Re: [Python-Dev] buildbot.python.org down again?

Am 08.07.14 16:48, schrieb Guido van Rossum: > May the true owner of buildbot.python.org > stand up! Well, I think that's me (atleast by my definition of "true owner"). I requested that the machine be set up, and I deployed the software that is running the service (it

Re: [Python-Dev] Updates to PEP 471, the os.scandir() proposal

On 10 July 2014 17:04, Paul Moore wrote: > On 10 July 2014 01:23, Victor Stinner wrote: > >> As a Windows user with only a superficial understanding of how > >> symlinks should behave, (...) > > > > FYI Windows also supports symbolic links since Windows Vista. The > > feature is unknown because

Re: [Python-Dev] Updates to PEP 471, the os.scandir() proposal

On 10 July 2014 01:23, Victor Stinner wrote: >> As a Windows user with only a superficial understanding of how >> symlinks should behave, (...) > > FYI Windows also supports symbolic links since Windows Vista. The > feature is unknown because it is restricted to the administrator > account. Try th