From: Aahz [mailto:aahz@pythoncraft.com]
> It's not at all contrived. And I think it's perfectly acceptable;
> it's no different, fundamentally, from calling f.close() twice by
> mistake.
I blew the example, as I forgot that multiple close() calls were OK.
And maybe Alex's point that cleanup should be callable multiple times
kills the whole argument.
But I'm not entirely sure I follow your comment. Are you saying that
you think that using the same object in 2 with statements (where, by
definition, in the second the object will be "already cleaned up") is
acceptable, or that you think it's a mistake (in which case, are you
saying that we shouldn't care *because* the coder made a mistake?)
Actually, I think I'm guilty of muddy thinking here, in any case. I
can imagine a single "manager" object, which could be entirely valid
in multiple with statements:
# Reusing the tired old file closing example, sorry, I'm
# too befuddled to think up a new example right now...
class manager:
def __init__(self, f =3D None):
self.f =3D f
def control(self, f):
self.f =3D f
def __exit__(self):
if self.f:
self.f.close()
self.f =3D None
f =3D open("whatever.txt")
M =3D manager(f)
with M:
# use M.f, could expose this better...
M.control(open("another.txt"))
with M:
...
I really can't decide if this is reasonable use, or horrible abuse. Or
somewhere in between. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like to have to =
maintain
code like this at short notice, though...
Time to stop responding to messages and have a good think about all of
this.
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