Author richardc
Recipients antoine.pietri, mshuffett, pitrou, richardc, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2017-05-28.13:37:39
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1495978660.27.0.845046916652.issue30177@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Pull Request (PR 1649) treats this as a documentation problem. I would argue that the documentation is correct and this is a bug in the code.

The `strict` flag was added as a result of issue19717. The decision on what to do when strict=False seems to come in https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2016-September/042203.html where Guido says:

"I would prefer it if Path.resolve() resolved symlinks until it hits
something that doesn't exist and then just keep the rest of the path
unchanged."

The documented behaviour also seems much more useful than the current behaviour.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-05-28 13:37:40richardcsetrecipients: + richardc, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, antoine.pietri, mshuffett
2017-05-28 13:37:40richardcsetmessageid: <1495978660.27.0.845046916652.issue30177@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-05-28 13:37:40richardclinkissue30177 messages
2017-05-28 13:37:39richardccreate