Created on 2012-06-29 00:19 by giampaolo.rodola, last changed 2012-06-29 03:54 by ncoghlan.
| Messages (3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg164307 - (view) | Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola)  |
Date: 2012-06-29 00:19 | |
It seems a doc fix is the best way to go, in which case I leave this one to a native English speaker: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-June/120788.html Alternatively a new 'strict' parameter has been proposed as a workaround: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-June/120800.html |
|||
| msg164309 - (view) | Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-06-29 00:50 | |
-1 on a "strict" parameter. This is a pointless obfuscation of the API. |
|||
| msg164312 - (view) | Author: Nick Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2012-06-29 03:54 | |
The os.path.exists() docs already cover all the gory details of when it may be false due to limited permissions. The is* docs refer to this by their use of the word "existing", but that's probably too subtle. I suggest adding an extra sentence to the docs of all affected functions: "This always returns False if os.path.exists(path) returns False." |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-06-29 03:54:52 | ncoghlan | set | messages: + msg164312 |
| 2012-06-29 00:50:25 | pitrou | set | nosy:
+ pitrou messages: + msg164309 |
| 2012-06-29 00:43:24 | cameron | set | nosy:
+ cameron |
| 2012-06-29 00:19:48 | giampaolo.rodola | create | |