Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Python (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f43-python.html)
-   -   Re: Possible fix for Bug 494589 - os.path.expandvars bug (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t319104-re-possible-fix-for-bug-494589-os-path-expandvars-bug.html)

Steve Holden 07-02-2003 03:56 AM

Re: Possible fix for Bug 494589 - os.path.expandvars bug
 
"Behrang Dadsetan" <ben@dadsetan.com> wrote ...

[...]
> For the second problem - as of now a real bug whatever we decide, I
> wrote within this comment (hereafter) a new expandvars version which
> fits the docstring documentation of dospath.py and the comments of
> ntpath.py. Sorry you will be getting no patch from me at the moment
> since sourceforge's anonymous CVS access does not like me.

[...]

If you can figure out everything you wrote about, it can't be *that* hard to
create a sourceforge account ;-).

regards
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/




Behrang Dadsetan 07-02-2003 09:42 PM

Re: Possible fix for Bug 494589 - os.path.expandvars bug
 
Skip Montanaro wrote:

> Behrang> I there a way for me to get a SSH CVS access?
> Behrang> Or will someone make/submit the patch for me?
>
>Martin v. Löwis is making nightly snapshots of the CVS tree:
>
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyt...ne/036609.html
>
>With that, you could create a "good enough" context diff and submit a patch
>on Sourceforge.
>
>Skip
>

Thanks Skip, already saw that trick.. but I actually first need some
advice from someone whether I should just fix the Lib/dospath.py and
Lib/ntpath.py with my version (to fit their actual docstring
documentation and comments) or whether I should rather patch them to
become just like Lib/posixpath.py so that they fit the "official"
documentation
(http://www.python.org/doc/current/li...e-os.path.html) and act the
same as the rest of the implementations.

a)If I fix the dospath.py and ntpath.py with my version:
The developpers reading the docstring/comments from the source code
will be happy. Possibly update the main Library Reference documentation
on that point explaining a special behaviour of these two
implementations. Would have the benefit to theoricaly not break any code
and instead fixing magicly some...
b)If I copy posixpath.py's implementation over the dospath.py and
ntpath.py implementations:
The dos and nt implementations would fit the official documentation
but I might break some existing code of fellow python developpers
c)If I copy my implementation to all underlying platform implementations
Could be possible if everyone loves the functionality promised by
the dospath docstring, I would need to consult some other platform
specialists to see how to adapt their code and then update the main
documentation site.

I guess b would be the most reasonable to do since the promises of
dospath.expandvars docstring never actually delivered what it sayed they
would and I feel we need a standard for os.path.expandvars behaviour
with breaking the minimum of existing code.

This need for advice was the other main reason I did not even risk
myself to a patch. If you (knowing well better the procedures and
attitudes of python implementors) still believe I would only get advice
submitting patches, do you think it is alright submitting two/three
different ones? I actually hoped we could first discuss what we want to
do. Also the reason why I wrote that I was awaited the BDFL to pronounce
a decision. What would be the procedure to get him taking a decision on
this? Do I need someone to bring up the question in python-dev? (my mail
last week to python-dev got ignored or automaticly classified as spam...
not sure ;-) )

Ben.



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.