Author pitrou
Recipients Kevin.Norris, eryksun, pitrou, steve.dower, tim.golden, zach.ware
Date 2014-09-11.19:14:32
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1410462872.35.0.864959574012.issue22299@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> Really, the test for whether to keep or remove the prefix should be to 
> remove the prefix and try and resolve the path again. If it succeeds, 
> remove the prefix; otherwise, keep it. This can only really be done as 
> part of the resolve() call, which would address the original issue,
> but it may be quite a perf. hit. 

It would also be prone to race conditions. All in all it sounds like a bad idea.
I still think it should be asked for explicitly. I don't know how the method should be called, .extended() perhaps?
History
Date User Action Args
2014-09-11 19:14:32pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, tim.golden, zach.ware, eryksun, steve.dower, Kevin.Norris
2014-09-11 19:14:32pitrousetmessageid: <1410462872.35.0.864959574012.issue22299@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-09-11 19:14:32pitroulinkissue22299 messages
2014-09-11 19:14:32pitroucreate