However, it seems there was no further discussion about why not "extension" and "extensions"? I have never heard a filename extension being called a "suffix".
You can't have read many unix man pages, then!
Huh, no I haven't! Certainly not regularly, as I'm almost exclusively a Windows user. :-)
This probably depends on your background. In my experience, the term "extension" arose in OSes where it was a formal part of the filename syntax, often highly constrained. E.g. RT11, CP/M, early MS-DOS.
Unix has never had a formal notion of extensions like that, only informal conventions, and has called them suffixes at least some of the time for as long as I can remember.
Yes, seems like it definitely is background-dependent. I'm Windows-centric. I stand corrected, and recant my position on "suffix". :-)
4) Is path_obj.glob() recursive? In the PEP it looks like it is if the pattern starts with '**',
I don't think it has to *start* with **. Rather, the ** is a pattern that can span directory separators. It's not a flag that applies to the whole thing -- a pattern could have a * in one place and a ** in another.
Oh okay, that makes more sense. It definitely needs more thorough documentation in that case. I would still prefer the simpler and more explicit rglob() / recursive=True rather than pattern new syntax, but I don't feel as strongly anymore. -Ben