CODEWITHSUNDEEP
pythonpath
GreenAsJade
GreenAsJade

Reputation: 14685

Is there a reason to avoid unix style relative paths in python?

I have written this:

ancestor_dir = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), *([os.pardir]*5 + [ancestor_name]))

I'm thinking, why don't I just say

ancestor_dir = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "../../../../../", ancestor_name]))

It seems to work in Windows and linux and is a lot easier to understand.

Upvotes: 3

Views: 113

Answers (2)

user6025378
user6025378

Reputation:

Using ".." instead of os.pardir not an issue unless you want to maintain compatibility with the classic Mac OS ( predecessor of OS X ) in which

  1. Parent directory is denoted by ::
  2. Directory separator is denoted by :
  3. Current directory is also denoted by :

You can check this by

import macpath

print(macpath.pardir) #print parent dir
print(macpath.curdir) #print current dir
print(macpath.sep) #print dir separator

The os module imports pardir from os.path module. Importing macpath imports os.path of classic Mac OS in other operating systems. Similarly ntpath is for Windows and posixpath for POSIX systems.

Using os.pardir is also useful to maintain readability of the code.

Note: using "../../../../../" is a bad idea in windows because here the directory separator is hard coded too and windows uses "\" as default directory separator (os.sep) . This directory separator is used by os.path.join(). So the resulting path will look hideous with mixed slashes. There is no compelling reason to stop you from using it and of course mixed slashes can be corrected with os.path.normpath()

Upvotes: 3

Will
Will

Reputation: 24699

Using os.pardir makes the code portable to non-POSIX systems. If compatibility isn't an issue, then it doesn't matter much. But one could argue that using os.pardir can be more readable; but that's too subjective to quantify.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions