RetroSearch Browse

Sun Feb 16 14:53:10 CET 2014 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132379.html

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> 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 behavior (--canonicalize-existing), but not vice verse.
>

Sorry, only now that I have time to look into this. So what we are
going to do before implementing the behaviour for
resolve(strict=False) is to change the behaviour of
resolve(strict=True) from --canonicalize-existing to --canonicalize?
Is there any time left because we are in RC1 already? Should we
postpone it to 3.5? But then, we'll have backward compatibility
problem.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132379.html below:

[Python-Dev] The desired behaviour for resolve() when the path doesn't exist