[Python-ideas] PEP 428: poll about the joining syntax

[Blake Hyde]

I'm a Python developer rather than a developer of Python, but I'd like to ask a
question about this option (and implicitly vote against it, I suppose); if you
specialize a method name, such as .pathjoin, aren't you implying that methods
must be unambiguous even across types and classes?  This seems negative.  Even
if .join is already used for strings, it also makes sense for this use case.

Of course, the proposed syntactic sugar options (operator overloading) seems
more pathological than either of the method-based options, so I suppose you
could consider my votes as -1 to everything else, +.5 to .pathjoin, and +1 to
.join.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>
> I don't like any of those; I'd vote for another regular method, maybe
> p.pathjoin(q).
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Since there has been some controversy about the joining syntax used in
> > PEP 428 (filesystem path objects), I would like to run an informal poll
> > about it. Please answer with +1/+0/-0/-1 for each proposal:
> >
> > - `p[q]` joins path q to path p
> > - `p + q` joins path q to path p
> > - `p / q` joins path q to path p
> > - `p.join(q)` joins path q to path p
> >
> > (you can include a rationale if you want, but don't forget to vote :-))
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Antoine.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Software development and contracting: http://pro.pitrou.net
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Python-ideas mailing list
> > Python-ideas at python.org
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>
>
>
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas