Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Leandro Lucarella" <llu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20090518141908.gb9...@burns.springfield.home...
bearophile, el 18 de mayo a las 04:33 me escribiste:
Andrei, I agree that "with" is dangerous when it shadows outer names
(Python designers have not added a "with" because of this).
They did, but with different semantics =)
It's used for RAII (I guess you already know that, but maybe other people
don't).
You mean like C#'s "using"?
What a God awful feature. Honestly, "what were they sinking about?" People
who explained that C# is cool - please explain this one.
Looks like
using(Foo x = new Foo()) {
// do stuff
}
It's basically equiv of
{
auto x = new Foo();
scope(exit) foo.Dispose;
// do stuff
}
So it saves a little typing but is capable of less. scope(exit) is way cooler.
Python has a similar feature to C#'s using. In Python it's called
"with". http://effbot.org/zone/python-with-statement.htm
That's not an "equiv of". It's "completely missing the point of". Each
"using" costs one new scope and one level of indentation which makes it
non-scalable. Indentation is *expensive*. I think the C# folks missed
the class when try/catch/finally showed with extensive examples just how
expensive extra indentation is.
Andrei
