Despite the bug being closed as WONTFIX, at the very least this seems like a valid docs issue. But (for whatever a non-core-dev opinion is worth), I'm +1 both on the proposed solution and deprecation.of `link_to()` Jim On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:45 AM Barney Gale <barney.gale@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Pathlib's symlink_to() and link_to() methods have different argument orders, so:
a.symlink_to(b) # Creates a symlink from A to B a.link_to(b) # Creates a hard link from B to A
I don't think link_to() was intended to be implemented this way, as the docs say "Create a hard link pointing to a path named target.". It's also inconsistent with everything else in pathlib, most obviously symlink_to().
Bug report here: https://bugs.python.org/issue39291
This /really/ irks me. Apparently it's too late to fix link_to(), so I'd like to suggest we add a new hardlink_to() method that matches the symlink_to() argument order. link_to() then becomes deprecated/undocumented.
Any thoughts?
Barney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/7QPLYW36... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/