On 1 July 2014 08:42, Ben Hoyt <benh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We need per-iteration error handling for the readdir call anyway, so I think >> an onerror callback is a better option than dropping the ability to easily >> obtain full stat information as part of the iteration. > > I don't mind the idea of an "onerror" callback, but it's adding > complexity. Putting aside the question of caching/timing for a second > and assuming .lstat() as per the current PEP 471, do we really need > per-iteration error handling for readdir()? When would that actually > fail in practice?
An NFS mount dropping the connection or a USB key being removed are the first that come to mind, but I expect there are others. I find it's generally better to just assume that any system call may fail for obscure reasons and put the infrastructure in place to deal with it rather than getting ugly, hard to track down bugs later. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
