Following up from Issue #19673; The initial patch clarifies the use cases of pure vs. concrete paths a bit and adds explicit signatures for the path class constructors (moving the construction discussion under the parent class).

Also, IMHO an inheritance diagram from PEP 428 is very relevant and useful. Would you mind if I add a .png for the pathlib rst doc?

> Would you mind if I add a .png for the pathlib rst doc?

No, it sounds ok to me.

Attaching a new patch. Hopefully the image will be viewable in the code review tool

Just in case it isn't: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15602400/images/pathlib-inheritance.png

> Hopefully the image will be viewable in the code review tool

Apparently not :)

Could you please attach the picture separatly?

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:21 AM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org>wrote:

>
> STINNER Victor added the comment:
>
> Could you please attach the picture separatly?
>
>
Done

Which tool did you use to draw this schema? You may attach also the source if someone would like to modify it in the future.

>
> STINNER Victor added the comment:
>
> Which tool did you use to draw this schema? You may attach also the source
> if someone would like to modify it in the future.
>

Sorry, but there's no source. I drew it graphically. But since I did it
with Google Drive's drawing program, I can just share out a link to the
editor -
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1F8do-1WL1sIGkZuiufcxcpZRtS0w4SwAowq-Uamrwt8/edit?usp=sharing

I suppose if someone wants to edit it they can copy the document and do
that.

You can export the schema as SVG.

Committed in 90b56ec318b6