I was going to stay out of this one...
On 14Jul2014 10:25, Victor Stinner wrote:
2014-07-14 4:17 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan :
Or the ever popular symlink to "." (or a directory higher in the tree).
"." and ".." are explicitly ignored by os.listdir() an os.scandir().
I think os.walk() is a good
On 2014-07-16 00:48, Russell E. Owen wrote:
In article
,
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Jason R. Coombs wrote:
> I can achieve what I need by constructing a set on the ‘items’ of the
dict.
>
set(tuple(doc.items()) for doc in res)
>
> {(('n', 1), ('err', No
In article
,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Jason R. Coombs wrote:
> > I can achieve what I need by constructing a set on the âitemsâ of the
> > dict.
> >
> set(tuple(doc.items()) for doc in res)
> >
> > {(('n', 1), ('err', None), ('ok', 1.0))}
>
> This is
On 07/14/2014 11:25 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Again: remove any garantee about the cache in the definitions of methods,
instead copy the doc from os.path and os. Add a global remark saying that
most methods don't need any syscall in general, except for symlinks (with
follow_symlinks=True).
I
On 15 July 2014 13:19, Ben Hoyt wrote:
> Hmmm, perhaps. You suggest .full_name implies it's the absolute path,
> which isn't true. I don't mind .path, but it kind of sounds like "the
> Path object associated with this entry". I think "full_name" is fine
> -- it's not "abs_name".
Interesting. I ha
> I'd *keep DirEntry.lstat() method* regardless of existence of
> .stat(*, follow_symlinks=True) method (despite the slight violation of
> DRY principle) for readability. `dir_entry.lstat().st_mode` is more
> consice than `dir_entry.stat(follow_symlinks=False).st_mode` and the
> meaning of lstat is
> Sorry, I don't remember who but someone proposed to add the follow_symlinks
> parameter in scandir() directly. If the parameter is added to methods,
> there is no such issue.
Yeah, I think having the DirEntry methods do different things
depending on how scandir() was called is a really bad idea
> Looks doable. Just make sure the cached entries reflect the
> 'follow_symlinks' setting -- so a symlink could end up with both an lstat
> cached entry and a stat cached entry.
Yes, good point -- basically the functions will use the _stat cache if
follow_symlinks=True, otherwise the _lstat cache
On 14 Jul 2014 22:50, "Ben Hoyt" wrote:
>
> In light of that, I propose I update the PEP to basically follow
> Victor's model of is_X() and stat() following symlinks by default, and
> allowing you to specify follow_symlinks=False if you want something
> other than that.
>
> Victor had one other qu
On 14 Jul 2014 11:41, "Brett Cannon" wrote:
>
>
> I agree for PEP 3121 which is the initialization/finalization work. The
stable ABi is not necessary. So maybe we should re-examine the patches and
accept the bits that clean up init/finalization and leave out any
ABi-related changes.
Martin's rig
10 matches
Mail list logo
