Message150175
| Author |
neologix |
| Recipients |
Trundle, draghuram, eric.araujo, giampaolo.rodola, neologix, pitrou, r.david.murray, tarek, techtonik, vstinner |
| Date |
2011年12月23日.15:53:56 |
| SpamBayes Score |
3.2948594e-10 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1324655637.21.0.542781097972.issue8828@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I'd prefer an optional flag to rename() too.
I really don't like having different functions that achieve the same thing.
It's not obvious to infer from 'replace' its real intent, since it
doesn't match any standard syscall/library.
Ideally, this should be made an option to rename(), especially since
on Unix this will just perform a standard rename.
Another advantage of options over new functions is that it reduces
boilerplate code (i.e. argument parsing, addition to posix_methods,
repeating OS idiosyncrasies/conditional compilation blocks, docstring,
documentation block...).
But I remember Martin thinks that the os module should just be a thin wrapper around underlying syscalls/libraries (but we already have listdir() and friends). |
|