On 20/05/2011 22:56, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
TBH I think the less attractive we can make os.access() look the
better. It uses the real uid instead of the effective uid, it
encourages LBYL behavior, the outcome may be incorrect, it doesn't
work on Windows... The ONLY reason to ever use it is in a
> TBH I think the less attractive we can make os.access() look the
> better. It uses the real uid instead of the effective uid, it
> encourages LBYL behavior, the outcome may be incorrect, it doesn't
> work on Windows... The ONLY reason to ever use it is in a setuid()
> program. But who writes thos
On May 20, 2011 8:30 AM, "Tim Golden" wrote:
> On 20/05/2011 16:21, Brian Curtin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 03:38, Tim Golden (Sorry about that; I had no idea I'd sent that from my work account)
>
>> I think we should tread lightly in the documentation area. We already
>> have two note b
On 20/05/2011 16:21, Brian Curtin wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 03:38, Tim Golden
(Sorry about that; I had no idea I'd sent that from my work account)
I think we should tread lightly in the documentation area. We already
have two note boxes, and adding a third probably scares everyone away.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 03:38, Tim Golden wrote:
> There's a thread on python-list at the moment:
>
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2011-May/1272505.html
>
> which is discussing the validity of os.access results on
> Windows. Now we've been here before: I raised issue2528
> for a p
There's a thread on python-list at the moment:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2011-May/1272505.html
which is discussing the validity of os.access results on
Windows. Now we've been here before: I raised issue2528
for a previous enquiry some years ago and proffered a patch
which us
