On 2018-04-22 12:37, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Kinda, except that that's not quite a match either. But mainly, the
> comparison with 'with' and 'except' is dangerously incompatible.
Hmm, looks very close conceptually, though mechanics are different.
Dangerous feels like an exaggeration however. I've made the argument that
occurrences would be very rare, but if I'm wrong, the code should blow up on its
first run. Perhaps a sanity check could be put in?
There is a section of your PEP that argues against the "bad code could
potentially be written" argument, and think it applies here.
> Maybe not, but why not just use ':=' to avoid that?
Don't hate it but feels like Pascal and C and not "Pythonic." Too many colons,
avoiding the questions about the difference between "=" and ":=". Expression
first is another win. People know how to use "as".
> Intuitive consistency isn't enough to handle complex cases.
> Programming languages that favour intuitive consistency end up with a
> million special cases.
Ok, but I think we have all the tools we need here, there's just an extra place
to stub your toe out in the weeds.
To turn the question around, are we really worried that this awkward code (or
some variant) is about to be written?
with (cm_obj := callable()) as enter_result_obj:
cm_obj.write() # AttributeError
If not, I argue it is a theoretical problem that, if hit, blows up immediately.
-Mike
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