On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Guido van Rossum
I don't like any of those; I'd vote for another regular method, maybe p.pathjoin(q).
My own current preference is to take "p.joinpath(q)" straight from path.py (https://github.com/jaraco/path.py/blob/master/path.py#L236). My rationale for disliking all of the poll options (clarified during the previous discussions, so I can summarise it better now): "p[q]", "p + q", "p / q": A method API is desirable *anyway* (for better integration with all the tools that deal with callables in general), and no compelling justification has been provided for offering two ways to do it (mere brevity when writing doesn't cut it, when the result is something that is more cryptic when reading and learning). "p + q", "p.join(q)": passing strings where path objects are needed is expected to be a common error mode, especially for people just starting to use the new API. It is desirable that such errors produce an exception rather than silently producing an incorrect string. I don't *love* joinpath as a name, I just don't actively dislike it the way I do the four presented options (and it has the virtue of the path.py precedent). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia