"Moore, Paul" <Paul.Moore@atosorigin.com> writes:
> From: Michael Hudson [mailto:mwh@python.net]
>>>> How would I do this elegantly without the assignment...?
>>>
>>> Just as you do with if:
>>
>> Good point. "with" testlist ':' NEWLINE it is, if it's me
>> that gets to write the PEP.
>
> Are you saying that you don't see the value of
>
> with var = expr:
> suite
>
> because it can be rewritten as
>
> var = expr
> with var:
> suite
>
> ? Hmm, I suppose so.
Well, I'd consider making the "var =" optional, but that would require
hairy parser games (I think it would be possible, but very nasty).
Given that it (practically) can't be, I find having to make up a name
for something that doesn't need one (e.g.
with dummy = autolock(lock):
...
) more unpleasant than having to bind to a name in a different line.
[...]
> So I guess what I'm saying is that "with ... autoclose" only
> make sense in combination. Putting the two on different lines loses
> that connection. If you need to name the result of the autoclose()
> call, you either allow the with construct to include the assignment,
> or you lose that conceptual link.
Hmm, maybe the nasty parser hacks would be worth it...
Cheers,
M.
--
8. A programming language is low level when its programs require
attention to the irrelevant.
-- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4