Greg Ewing wrote:
> By the way, I happen to think there are better uses
> to which the word 'with' could be put, e.g. the
> suggestion of making
>
> with lock(foo):
> do_something()
>
> mean something like
>
> _x = lock(foo)
> _x.__enter__()
> try:
> do_something()
> finally:
> _x.__exit()
That would be nice, but here is what I would like it to mean:
def _f():
do_something()
lock(foo)(_f)
That would allow the object of the "with" statement to execute the code
block once, many times, or not at all.
Shane
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