RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 6 17:04:19 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047122.html

Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> writes:

>> >>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.)

Noted.  I'll do something about it eventually...

>> 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.

Somehow I'd missed that.

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
  Its unmanageable complexity has spawned more fear-preventing tools
  than any other language, but the solution _should_ have been to 
  create and use a language that does not overload the whole goddamn 
  human brain with irrelevant details.  -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047122.html below:

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