Message220327
I have the patch almost ready, but ran into another issue: should "path.with_name('foo/')" be allowed? It may make sense to treat it like "path.with_name('foo')", just like 'Path("foo/") == Path("foo")'.
The implementation is also simpler with it, as it can reuse the "parse_parts" approach used by "with_suffix". But this also raises a separate issue, which is that with the current implementation, we have "Path('foo').with_suffix('.bar') == Path('foo').with_suffix('.bar/')", and that is less reasonable. Should I open a separate issue for that? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2014-06-12 01:42:23 | Antony.Lee | set | recipients:
+ Antony.Lee, pitrou |
2014-06-12 01:42:23 | Antony.Lee | set | messageid: <1402537343.55.0.709250905633.issue21714@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2014-06-12 01:42:23 | Antony.Lee | link | issue21714 messages |
2014-06-12 01:42:22 | Antony.Lee | create | |
|