RetroSearch Browse

Fri Oct 11 18:27:06 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129404.html

Am 11.10.2013 16:47, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Oct 11, 2013, at 09:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> 
>>I don't think that this contextlib.ignore() thing has been discussed a
>>lot.
>>
>>Ezio was -1 on the tracker, and Eric Smith was -0. I'd like to add my
>>-1 too. This is a useless addition (the traditional idiom is perfectly
>>obvious) and makes reading foreign code more tedious by adding
>>superfluous API calls.
>>
>>Please consider reverting.  There is absolutely zero use case for this
>>that wasn't already solved by the traditional "except ...: pass" idiom.
> 
> I'm +0; I think it's a nice little addition that could be useful, but I don't
> care enough to wait for 3.4 to delete similar code in a my own programs.

Same here.

> To bikeshed though: why was `ignored` changed to `ignore`?  The former reads
> better to me, and I don't think *that* particular change was discussed at all
> in the tracker afaict.

Maybe to fit in with other verb-like APIs used as context managers:
it's open() not opened().

Georg

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129404.html below:

[Python-Dev] cpython: Rename contextlib.ignored() to contextlib.ignore().