On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 1:42 PM Bernardo Sulzbach <bernardo@bernardosulzbach.com> wrote:

"Serhiy and Remi objected, because it might not be obvious that the length of the path would be the length of string." I find this _really_ unintuitive. If anything, I would expect len(p) to be the "depth" of the path, which doesn't make a lot of sense if it is not an absolute path.

I agree. I expect iteration, indexing, and length to refer to parts, not characters. In particular I'm a bit disappointed that `path[-1]` isn't equal to `path.name`, especially because finding `path.name` was tricky - at first I guessed path.basename (doesn't exist) and path.stem (close, but wrong). Can we implement that instead?