"Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> writes: > At 07:02 PM 10/3/2005 +0100, Michael Hudson wrote: >>"Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> writes: >> >> > Since the PEP is accepted and has patches for both its implementation >> and a >> > good part of its documentation, a major change like this would certainly >> > need a better rationale. >> >>Though given the amount of interest said patch has attracted (none at >>all) > > Actually, I have been reading the patch and meant to comment on it. Oh, good. > I was perplexed by the odd stack behavior of the new opcode until I > realized that it's try/finally that's weird. :) :) > I was planning to look into whether that could be cleaned up as > well, when I got distracted and didn't go back to it. I see. I don't know whether trying to clean up the stack protocol around exceptions is worth the about of pain it causes in the head (anyone still thinking about removing the block stack?). >> perhaps noone cares very much and the proposal should be dropped. > > I care an awful lot, as 'with' is another framework-dissolving tool that > makes it possible to do more things in library form, without needing to > resort to template methods. It also enables more context-sensitive > programming, in that "global" states can be set and restored in a > structured fashion. It may take a while to feel the effects, but it's > going to be a big improvement to Python, maybe as big as new-style classes, > and certainly bigger than decorators. I think 'as big as new-style classes' is probably an exaggeration, but I'm glad my troll caught a few people :) Cheers, mwh -- Those who have deviant punctuation desires should take care of their own perverted needs. -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
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