Paul Moore wrote:
> 'with' expr ':'
> suite
Yes, simplicity is good. I don't buy the arguments for
replacing:
suite_user = expr
with suite_user:
suite
with:
with suite_user = expr:
suite
The arguments in favor of the latter could be applied
to 'while' (or even 'if') as well. I know you don't
have to worry about '=' being confused for '==' in
this case, but is the gain here enough to warrant the
inconsistency?
It's interesting to note that with Guido's proposal,
your example [slightly paraphrased here]:
> class autolock:
> def __init__(self, l): self.l = l
> def __enter__(self): self.l.acquire()
> def __exit__(self): self.l.release()
>
> with autolock(lock()):
> # work with the lock held
Could be coded like this, given the right implementation
of with_block:
class with_autolock(with_block):
def __init__(self, l): with_block.__init__(self); self.l = l
def __enter__(self): self.l.acquire()
def __exit__(self): self.l.release()
with_autolock(lock()):
# work with the lock held
(If support for multiple thunk users is added back, the
'with' could probably be added back to the example also.)
-Jerry
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