Conversation
|
Hello, and thanks for your contribution! I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA). Unfortunately our records indicate you have not signed the CLA. For legal reasons we need you to sign this before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue. Thanks again to your contribution and we look forward to looking at it! |
|
|
||
| If the provided *target* is a path object, it is the method's return value. | ||
| Otherwise (if it is a string), new path object is created from it and returned. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The example below needs to be updated now that p.rename(target) is returning a value (double-check this in a terminal):
>>> p = Path('foo')
>>> p.open('w').write('some text')
9
>>> target = Path('bar')
>>> p.rename(target)
Path('bar')
>>> target.open().read()
'some text'
| self._raise_closed() | ||
| self._accessor.rename(self, target) | ||
| if isinstance(target, str): | ||
| target = self.__class__(target) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be safer to call self.__class__ unconditionally (i.e. if a new type of object besides PurePath or str is added to pathlib in the future). If we want to support original object return in pathlib, that's really something that should be added to PurePath._from_parts.
if self._closed:
self._raise_closed()
self._accessor.rename(self, target)
return self.__class__(target)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I was considering this approach as well, just wanted to avoid having two objects representing the same thing.
I have no strong preferences for either approach
|
The user account that created this pull request has been deleted, so I'm going to close this. |
6 participants
Hello,
this is a patch for bpo-31163. I am not an author, but I noticed the same thing and found the open issue (didn't know how to respond to it on bug tracker tho).
As I didn't see anyone opposing the change, I assumed it is OK, and tried to implement it.
This is my first attempt to contribute to Python, so please tell me if I missed something.
Regarding the code - not sure what the conventions in the standard library are, there were 3 options:
If I should've picked other option, please do correct me
Thanks!
https://bugs.python.org/issue31163