Add comment explaining that Fpath.follow_symlink is recursive, delete follow_symlinks

[ElectreAAS]

The presence of both follow_symlink and follow_symlinks (with an s) might lead people to believe that the former will only follow a singular link once. That is not the case, the whole thread is pulled.
Since the plural one was completely unused, I removed it entirely.

[Leonidas-from-XIV]

This is very nice to know. Could you maybe also add a note in the documentation how these two functions differ, beyond just the return type? Because I share your initial confusion.

[Alizter]

follow_symlinks appears to be entirely unused...

[Alizter]

I think you should just get rid of Fpath.follow_symlinks it is dead code, and improve the comment description of Fpath.follow_symlink.

[Leonidas-from-XIV]

Then even better to remove it, move and adapt the documentation comment.

[ElectreAAS]

I am quite surprised to learn that the plural version is unused, it seemed like quite a smart thing to do.
Working on #13792, I was taken aback by the lack of universal "sanitize/canonicalize" path functions, and this one seemed to do part of that job

[shonfeder]

Are you planning to use the plural one? That would be a reason to keep it if so.

[shonfeder]

What is needed to get this PR closed or merged?

[ElectreAAS]

I just need to take a second look at it, will do now