From: M.-A. Lemburg [mailto:mal@lemburg.com] > Given the length of this thread, could someone please distill > this into one or more PEPs ?! I'm willing to make a stab at a PEP on the "with" syntax. I can't offer any implementation effort, sorry. I'll hash something up over the next few days. I'd suggest someone write a PEP on the def ... [expr] syntax, too. I don't want to end up juggling 2 PEPs, so I'd rather someone else did this. I can't see enough clarity in the various versions of the thunk proposals to make a decent PEP yet. But I'd love someone to prove me wrong :-) [AFAICT, the thunk discussions are still in flux in both syntax and semantics, to there's little definite to write down]. I don't think there are any other concrete offerings on the table. Paul.
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