Michael Walter <michael.walter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/19/05, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > RSMotD (random stupid musing of the day): so I wonder if the decorator
> > > syntax couldn't be extended for this kind of thing.
> > >
> > > @acquire(myLock):
> > > code
> > > code
> > > code
> >
> > Would it be useful for anything other than mutex-locking? And wouldn't
> > it be better to make a function of the block wrapped in a
> > block-decorator and then use a normal decorator?
>
> Yes. Check how blocks in Smalltalk and Ruby are used for starters.
See the previous two discussions on thunks here on python-dev, and
notice how the only problem that seem bettered via blocks/thunks /in
Python/ are those which are of the form...
#setup
try:
block
finally:
#finalization
... and depending on the syntax, properties. I once asked "Any other
use cases for one of the most powerful features of Ruby, in Python?" I
have yet to hear any sort of reasonable response.
Why am I getting no response to my question? Either it is because I am
being ignored, or no one has taken the time to translate one of these
'killer features' from Smalltalk or Ruby, or perhaps such translations
show that there is a better way in Python already.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have more than a few examples of the
try/finally block in my code, so I would personally find it useful, but
just because this one pattern is made easier, doesn't mean that it
should see syntax.
- Josiah
P.S. If I'm sounding like a broken record to you, don't be surprised.
But until my one question is satisfactorally answered, I'll keep poking
at its soft underbelly.
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