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 neologix
Recipients Trundle, abacabadabacaba, benhoyt, brian.curtin, christian.heimes, eric.araujo, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, loewis, ncoghlan, neologix, nvetoshkin, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, socketpair, terry.reedy, tim.golden, torsten, twouters, vstinner
Date 2013-05-06.06:51:56
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
> Charles gave this example of code that would fall over:
> size = 0
> for name, st in scandir(path):
>     if stat.S_ISREG(st.st_mode):
>         size += st.st_size
> I don't see it, though. In this case you need both .st_mode and .st_size, so a caller would check that those are not None, like so:

Well, that's precisely the point.
A normal "caller" would never expect a stat object to be partially
populated: if a function has a prototype returning a stat object, then
I definitely expect it to be a regular stat object, with all the
fields guaranteed by POSIX set (st_size, st_ino, st_dev...). By
returning a dummy stat object, you break the stat interface, and I'm
positive this *will* puzzle users and introduce errors.

Now, if I'm the only one who finds this trick dangerous and ugly, you
can go ahead, but I stand by my claim that it's definitely a bad idea
(between this and the explicit Enum value assignent, I feel somewhat
lost lately :-)
Date User Action Args
2013-05-06 06:51:57neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, loewis, twouters, rhettinger, terry.reedy, gregory.p.smith, ncoghlan, pitrou, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, christian.heimes, tim.golden, eric.araujo, Trundle, brian.curtin, benhoyt, torsten, nvetoshkin, abacabadabacaba, socketpair, serhiy.storchaka
2013-05-06 06:51:56neologixlinkissue11406 messages
2013-05-06 06:51:56neologixcreate