This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author gvanrossum
Recipients Arfrever, draghuram, eric.araujo, ggenellina, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, ijmorlan, terry.reedy, ysj.ray, zooko
Date 2010-07-21.07:08:47
SpamBayes Score 1.6180968e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <AANLkTilhpkdOzm4MaEVpH5WROmgC1-Jtr-B0lfTa1ySR@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1279679533.33.0.762613693552.issue9299@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Terry J. Reedy <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Terry J. Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> added the comment:
>
> Discussion has continued on pydev thread "mkdir -p in python". Some suggested a new function. Others questioned the details of the new behavior. Guido prefers the flag approach and imitation of mkdir -p.
>
> "-1 on a new function (despite the constant-argument
> guideline) and +1 on a flag. If it weren't for backwards compatibility
> I'd just change os.makedirs() to act like mkdir -p period, but the
> last opportunity we had for that was Python 3.0."
>
> So, the patch should either leave behavior untouched or imitate -p behavior. That to me says that the parameter passed to mkdirs should be propagated to each mkdir call, as the 9299 patch does, and not set to a fixed value.

Hm. I wonder if os.mkdir() should not be left alone (so as to continue
to match the system call most exactly, as is our convention) and the
extra functionality added to os.makedirs() only.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-07-21 07:08:52gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, terry.reedy, zooko, ggenellina, draghuram, giampaolo.rodola, ijmorlan, eric.araujo, Arfrever, ysj.ray
2010-07-21 07:08:49gvanrossumlinkissue9299 messages
2010-07-21 07:08:47gvanrossumcreate