On 11-06-18 02:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 22:09:39 +0100, Barry Scott wrote: > >> Singling out os.path.exists as a special case I do think is reasonable. >> All functions that take paths need to have a consistent response to data > The *mere existence* of os.path.exists means that there is not a > consistent response to file names: > > open(foo) raises an exception if foo doesn't exist; > > os.path.exists(foo) returns False if foo doesn't exist.
That is not correct. The path can exist and os.path.exists still return False. > There is no requirement that different functions do the same thing with > the same bad input. The *whole point* of o.p.exists is to return False, > not raise an exception. And the price is that it will not always give the correct answer. -- Antoon Pardon. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
