# Pre-Pre-RFC: / for Paths

**URL:** <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-pre-rfc-for-paths/2420>\
**Category:** libs\
**Created:** [July 31, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-pre-rfc-for-paths/2420 "2015-07-31T14:47:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 27

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bluss](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/bluss/32/2264_2.png) [@bluss](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/bluss)\
**Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 3:56pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-pre-rfc-for-paths/2420/27 "2015-08-03T15:56:11Z")

</div>

I’m against further binary operator overloads like this, in particular because of the Path vs PathBuf asymmetry and confusion for users in &Path vs &PathBuf vs PathBuf.

Right now we allow `String + &str` but neither `&str + String` nor `String + String`, let’s not replicate that further until we have a solid solution.

---

_[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-pre-rfc-for-paths/2420)._