[Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
Ben Hoyt
benhoyt at gmail.com
Tue Jul 15 14:05:55 CEST 2014
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Jul 15 14:05:55 CEST 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> 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. It seems you're agreeing with this? > 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'm not sure I follow this -- surely it *has* to be documented that the values of DirEntry.is_X() and DirEntry.stat() are cached per entry, in contrast to os.path.isX()/os.stat()? I don't mind a global remark about not needing syscalls, but I do think it makes sense to make it explicit -- that is_X() almost never need syscalls, whereas stat() does only on POSIX but is free on Windows (except for symlinks). -Ben
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Remaining decisions on PEP 471 -- os.scandir()
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list