At 04:51 PM 5/16/2005 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > This makes it seem awkward for e.g. "do self.__lock", which doesn't
> > make any sense. But the extra call needed to make it "do
> > locking(self.__lock)" seems sort of gratuitous.
>
>How about
>
> do holding(self.__lock):
I simply mean that having to have any wrapper at all for common cases seems
silly.
>It doesn't work so well when you don't already have an
>object with one obvious interpretation of what you want
>to do 'with' it, e.g. you have a pathname and you want
>to open a file.
Um, what's wrong with 'with open("filename") as f'?
> I've already argued against giving file
>objects __enter__ and __exit__ methods. And I'm -42 on
>giving them to strings. :-)
If strings had them, __enter__ would return self, and __exit__ would do
nothing. I fail to see a problem. :)
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