On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> --canonicalize is not strict. --canonicalize-existing is most strict and
> --canonicalize-missing is least strict. When you have a function which have
> non-strict behavior (--canonicalize), you can implement a wrapper with
> strict behavio
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:45:54 +0200
Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 07.01.14 22:28, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
> >> So perhaps two main modes should be --canonicalize (default) and
> >> --canonicalize-missing (with missing=True)?
> >
> > That sounds reasonable. And I think strict should be the default.
07.01.14 22:28, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
So perhaps two main modes should be --canonicalize (default) and
--canonicalize-missing (with missing=True)?
That sounds reasonable. And I think strict should be the default.
--canonicalize is not strict. --canonicalize-existing is most strict and
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:26:20 +0200
Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>
> Behavior of --canonicalize-existing can be derived from --canonicalize,
> just check that resulting patch exists. But other modes can't be derived
> from --canonicalize-existing.
>
> def resolve_existing(path):
> path = path.r
06.01.14 12:38, Vajrasky Kok написав(ла):
This is related with ticket 19717: "resolve() fails when the path
doesn't exist".
Assuming /home/cutecat exists but not /home/cutecat/aa,
what is the desired output of
Path('/home/cutecat/aa/bb/cc').resolve(strict=False)?
Should it be:
"/home/cutecat"
Dear friends,
This is related with ticket 19717: "resolve() fails when the path
doesn't exist".
Assuming /home/cutecat exists but not /home/cutecat/aa,
what is the desired output of
Path('/home/cutecat/aa/bb/cc').resolve(strict=False)?
Should it be:
"/home/cutecat" (the existed path only),
"/h
