On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 15:58, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:41:46 -0400 > Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: >> I think it would be a nice feature, and I can see the conflict. OT1H you want >> to keep os.chown() a thin wrapper, but OTOH you'd rather not have to add a >> new, arguably more difficult to discover, function. Given those two choices, >> I still think I'd come down on adding a new function and shutil.chown() seems >> an appropriate place for it. > > +1 for shutil.chown(). and so shutil.chown() be it: http://bugs.python.org/issue12191 Currently, only the function for a single file is implemented, let's look later what to do for a recursive one. Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4