Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #5785 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-05-19 21:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2011-05-19 21:08 +0100 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: os.access giving incorrect results on Windows Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2011-05-19 21:08 +0100
| From | Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-19 21:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: os.access giving incorrect results on Windows |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1800.1305835712.9059.python-list@python.org> |
On 19/05/2011 20:56, Andrew Berg wrote: > On 2011.05.19 02:43 PM, Tim Golden wrote: >> This is basically issue2528 [1]. >> The problem is that, although Windows (and Python) >> expose a version of os.access to match the Posix function, >> the meaning is so far removed on Windows as to be useless. > Does this affect just os.W_OK and directories or all of os.access()? > > In any case, this information should really be reflected in the docs. The current code is very naive: * A R_OK check always succeeds if the file's attributes can be read at all * A W_OK check fails if the file has its DOS read-only attribute set * A W_OK check always succeeds for a directory (because read-only means something else for directories). Would you care to propose some wording for the docs? I'm quite happy to commit if we can come to an agreement. TJG
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web