>> However, it seems there was no further discussion about why not >> "extension" and "extensions"? I have never heard a filename extension >> being called a "suffix". > > > You can't have read many unix man pages, then! Huh, no I haven't! Certainly not regularly, as I'm almost exclusively a Windows user. :-) > This probably depends on your background. In my experience, > the term "extension" arose in OSes where it was a formal > part of the filename syntax, often highly constrained. > E.g. RT11, CP/M, early MS-DOS. > > Unix has never had a formal notion of extensions like that, > only informal conventions, and has called them suffixes at > least some of the time for as long as I can remember. Yes, seems like it definitely is background-dependent. I'm Windows-centric. I stand corrected, and recant my position on "suffix". :-) >> 4) Is path_obj.glob() recursive? In the PEP it looks like it is if the >> pattern starts with '**', > > > I don't think it has to *start* with **. Rather, the ** is > a pattern that can span directory separators. It's not a > flag that applies to the whole thing -- a pattern could have > a * in one place and a ** in another. Oh okay, that makes more sense. It definitely needs more thorough documentation in that case. I would still prefer the simpler and more explicit rglob() / recursive=True rather than pattern new syntax, but I don't feel as strongly anymore. -Ben
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4