I'm forwarding Barry's answer:
-------- Message transféré -------- De: Barry Warsaw email@example.com À: Antoine Pitrou public-solipsis-xNDA5Wrcr86sTnJN9+BGXg@plane.gmane.org Sujet: Re: PEP 428: poll about the joining syntax Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:17:01 -0400
Like a good American low-information voter, I'll cast my ballot without having read PEP 428.
On Oct 08, 2012, at 08:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
- `p[q]` joins path q to path p
-1 Definitely not intuitive.
- `p + q` joins path q to path p
+0. IMHO, the most intuitive, but causes problems when you just want to tack on an extension, er, suffix. I guess if PathObj + str works it's not so bad.
- `p / q` joins path q to path p
+0. Cute! Too *nix centric?
- `p.join(q)` joins path q to path p
-0. Explicit (yay), but a bit verbose (boo). Maybe this should be the default underlying API, with one of the above as nice syntactic sugar?