From: Bernhard Herzog [mailto:bh@intevation.de]
> IMO if you want multiple controllers for a with statement you
> should just nest the withs:
>
> with var1 =3D expr1:
> with var2 =3D expr2:
> suite
To some extent, an important point of the with expression is to
simplify the overall control construct, and to reduce the level
of nesting needed. Combining the variables was intended to help
with this.
> This makes the order in which the methods of the varN will be
> called obvious.
It should be fairly obvious from the combined form too - enter in
the order specified, and leave in reverse order.
> > In this, any varN can be omitted and a dummy hidden variable
> > is used.=20
>=20
> Meaning something like
>=20
> with var1, , var3 =3D expr1, expr2, expr3:
> suite
>=20
> I guess. Urgs.
Agreed. I didn't mean that. Originally, I'd specified this as
with var1 =3D expr1, var2 =3D expr2, ...:
but I switched to parallel the normal multiple assignment idiom.
How about
with [ var1, var2, ... =3D ] expr1, expr2, ...
so that you can omit all or none? That's basically just like a
normal tuple assignment.
> Nested withs handle this in a cleaner way as well, IMO.
Yes, I guess they do. I'll make sure I have this as at least an
option in the PEP. I still like the combined form, just because
it reduces the tendency to drift towards the right margin. But
I'm not convinced it will be important particularly often...
Thanks for the comments,
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