PTH118: why not joinpath instead of /?

[leon1995]

why ruff recommends "os.path.join() should be replaced by Path with / operator" and not Path().joinpath?

/ is more readable than os.path.join

says ruff's documentation but joinpath is kinda more readable than /. So why not recommending joinpath instead?

[leon1995]

ruffs documentation actually recommends using joinpath in the text but not in the example and the error PTH118 when running ruff check.

[tjkuson]

I prefer the forward slash notation, as that is how I am used to reading paths on my OS. I also think there is less visual clutter and more consistency in p1 / p2 / p3 than p1.joinpath(p2, p3). My understanding is that the ruff documentation mentions Path.joinpath() as it is the descriptive name for the special / path operator.

[leon1995]

ok, maybe I got confused then. I think its also a personal choice. Maybe a second example could be added using the actual joinpath?