💡 RFC: Standardize path imports

[natemoo-re]

Small suggestion: I’ve noticed that we all have different styles when it comes to expanding different methods for node:path. I’ve even seen us have local variables named path that cause us to remap node:path to something else entirely to avoid conflict. It’s just different in every file. Here, I think renaming posix as path may be a little unexpected here, especially if non-POSIX is needed.

What do you think about just standardizing import path from 'path' in the project everywhere? It’s a little more verbose but it’s predictable, and we don’t need to keep changing import statements every time we need a new method

Originally posted by @drwpow in #231 (comment)

[drwpow]

Related: should we just use import fs from 'fs'; as well, too? I don’t feel as strongly about fs but it follows a similar pattern of every module renames common methods differently

[matthewp]

@drwpow I think we should be using the promises versions of fs methods (I think we are for the most part now).

[drwpow]

Yeah I agree with fs.promises everywhere. It’s just exists() that’s left out. I’d be fine with { existsSync, promises as fs } or something.