Casey Duncan <casey at zope.com>:
> For some reason I thought there was a philosophical objection to 'with'
> in Python. Must have been an urban myth I guess.
I think it's considered to have quite a low priority,
since it wouldn't buy you much. Binding a nice short
temporary name to the with-ed object is almost as
concise and arguably clearer.
By the way, I happen to think there are better uses
to which the word 'with' could be put, e.g. the
suggestion of making
with lock(foo):
do_something()
mean something like
_x = lock(foo)
_x.__enter__()
try:
do_something()
finally:
_x.__exit()
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. |
greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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