David Barnett added the comment: The idiom of pathlib.Path.cwd() / pathlib.Path('some/path') isn't too bad of an approach if it could just be mentioned in the docs. I would intuitively expected something like pathlib.Path('some/path').resolve(follow_symlinks=False)
My use case was that I had an equality check like this failing: expected_path = pathlib.Path.cwd() / pathlib.Path('some/path') pathlib.Path('some/path') == expected_path I suppose I should file that as a separate bug because semantically those paths are equal, but I was trying to work around it like pathlib.Path('some/path').resolve() == expected_path which in my case still failed because some/path was a symlink. Even if that's fixed, I would still expect to run into cases where I wanted to print specifically the relative or absolute path in informational messages and would not want to follow symlinks (e.g., in "Requested path X not found", the user would recognize the absolute path as the one they entered but not necessarily the symlink-resolved version). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25012> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com