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 Walter Szeliga
Recipients Walter Szeliga, brett.cannon, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2017-02-07.19:04:49
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1486494289.89.0.725061651268.issue29425@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
If Path.rename() were made to be slightly more than a wrapper around os.rename(), then any future changes to the return value of os.rename() could be taken into consideration in the return value of Path.rename(). I don't see how anything would become impossible then.

Creating the destination Path object explicitly is my solution right now. Since it had become such a pattern in my code, I figured it could be delegated up to the level of the Path object and make for cleaner looking code.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-02-07 19:04:49Walter Szeligasetrecipients: + Walter Szeliga, brett.cannon, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka
2017-02-07 19:04:49Walter Szeligasetmessageid: <1486494289.89.0.725061651268.issue29425@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-02-07 19:04:49Walter Szeligalinkissue29425 messages
2017-02-07 19:04:49Walter Szeligacreate