> Previously it was always tempting to use string concatenation (concise, but obviously bad), now with pathlib the code is safe, concise, and readable.
This is the kind of feature that I'm wary to use even in scripts: questionable benefit, and probably too clever.
It's not like programs consist of path operations to a significant degree, so using fancy syntactic sugar doesn't seem like a worthwhile optimization to me. At all.
>>> Path.cwd() / 1
TypeError: argument should be a path or str object, not <class 'int'>
TypeError: expected str, bytes or os.PathLike object, not int >>> from pathlib import Path
>>> p=Path(1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "/usr/lib/python3.6/pathlib.py", line 979, in __new__
self = cls._from_parts(args, init=False)
File "/usr/lib/python3.6/pathlib.py", line 654, in _from_parts
drv, root, parts = self._parse_args(args)
File "/usr/lib/python3.6/pathlib.py", line 638, in _parse_args
a = os.fspath(a)
TypeError: expected str, bytes or os.PathLike object, not int
>>>
Python is strongly typed.
Should I have said "numeric characters" or "numeric strings" in my last paragraph instead of numbers?