(original) (raw)
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 at 11:13 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
On 04/08/2016 10:46 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
\> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
\>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
\>>> I'm still thinking a little bit about 'pathname', which to me sounds
\>>> more like a string than fspath does.
\>>
\>>
\>> I like that a lot - or even "\_\_pathstr\_\_" or "\_\_pathstring\_\_"
\>> after all, we're making a big deal out of the fact that a path is
\>> \*not a string\*, but rather a string is a \*representation\* (or
\>> serialization) of a path.
That's a decent point.
So the plausible choices are, I think:
\- \_\_fspath\_\_ # File System Path -- possible confusion with Path
+1
\- \_\_fsstr\_\_ # File System String
-1 Looks like a cat walked across my keyboard or someone trying to come up with a trendy startup name.
\- \_\_fspathstr\_\_ # File System Path String -- zero ambiguity, but
\# what a mouthful
-1 See above.
I personally still like \_\_ospath\_\_ as well.