[Python-ideas] PEP 428: poll about the joining syntax
Ethan Furman
ethan at stoneleaf.us
Wed Oct 10 21:13:19 CEST 2012
More information about the Python-ideas mailing list
Wed Oct 10 21:13:19 CEST 2012
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] PEP 428: poll about the joining syntax
- Next message: [Python-ideas] PEP 428: poll about the joining syntax
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 00:45:41 +0530 > Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:24 AM, 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). > [...] >> 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). > > How about one_path.to(other_path) ? .to -> +0 .add -> +1
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] PEP 428: poll about the joining syntax
- Next message: [Python-ideas] PEP 428: poll about the joining syntax
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-ideas mailing list