Guido van Rossum wrote: >>Also, one question: will the "do protocol" be added to built-in "resource" >>types? That is, locks, files, sockets, and so on? > > One person proposed that and it was shot down by Greg Ewing. I think > it's better to require a separate wrapper. It depends on whether the resource is "reusable". It would be okay for locks since you can lock and unlock the same lock as many times as you want, but files and sockets can only be used once, so there has to be something else around them. ALthough if we use 'do', we might want to use wrappers anyway for readability, even if they're not semantically necessary. -- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg.ewing at 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