RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 6 16:56:53 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047118.html

> >>I added "with", although I havn't seen it.
> >
> > Guido's reserving "with" for this purpose in some future Python:
> >
> >      with x.y:
> >          .z = spam    # set x.y.z = spam
> >          print .q.r   # print x.y.q.r
> 
> Except that the only extant PEP involving with actually uses it for
> something else :-)

And I wish that PEP would propose a different name.  (In fact, the
fact that 'with' is slated for a different use should be added to it.)

> I think talking about what Guido is or isn't doing is a bit
> ... wrong?

Yes if it's speculation (like what I would consider "pythonic").  In
this case, I have repeatedly stated exactly what is quoted above as my
preferred use for 'with' in Python 3.0.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047118.html below:

[Python-Dev] @decorators, the PEP and the "options" out there?