Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The naming convention for 'do' is shown in the current PEP 343. The issue I've
> noticed with it is that *functions* read well, but methods don't because things
> get out of sequence. That is, "do locking(the_lock)" reads well, but "do
> the_lock.locking()" does not.
>
> Whereas, using 'with', it can be written either way, and still read reasonably
> well ("with locked(the_lock)", "with the_lock.locked()").
>
> The 'with' keyword also reads better if objects natively support use in 'with'
> blocks ("with the_lock", "with the_file").
>
> Guido's concern regarding file objects being reused inappropriately can be dealt
> with in the file __enter__ method:
>
> def __enter__(self):
> if self.closed:
> raise RuntimeError, "Cannot reopen closed file handle"
>
> For files, it may then become the common practice to keep pathnames around,
> rather than open file handles. When you actually needed access to the file, the
> existing "open" builtin would suffice:
>
> with open(filename, "rb") as f:
> for line in f:
> print line
I think I'm starting to agree. Currently about +0.6 in
favour of 'with' now, especially if this is to be
almost exclusively a resource-acquisition statement,
as all our use cases seem to be.
--
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