Samuele Pedroni <pedronis at bluewin.ch> writes:
[...]
> maybe this is too much DWIMish, but it occurred to me that a further
> option would be for the semantics to be:
>
> var = expr
>
> if hasattr(var, "__enter__"):
> var.__enter__()
>
> try:
> suite
> finally:
> if hasattr(var, "__exit__"):
> var.__exit__()
> elif hasattr(var, "close"): # consider also close as a synonym of __exit__
> var.close()
>
> I'm not proposing to do without __exit__, I recall the next/__next__
> debate, but I'm wondering if this is well documented, how many times
> considering close a synomym of __exit__ would do the wrong thing, such
> that the user would have to hide close somehow to use 'with' & some
> object, and this wrt the times someone would need a wrapper to have
> __exit__ trigger a close.
>
> I don't think it is worth to have a debate right now, still this
> should maybe be added to the PEP as an option to consider.
FWIW, I think this has come up before. For *me*, I think having less
magic is worth the pain of adding "__exit__ = close" to a few class
statements. Do you want to add "release" as a synonym too? I don't.
Cheers,
mwh
--
This makes it possible to pass complex object hierarchies to
a C coder who thinks computer science has made no worthwhile
advancements since the invention of the pointer.
-- Gordon McMillan, 30 Jul 1998
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