Guido writes:
[a rather silly objection to Phillip's proposal that 'with x:' is
a no-op when x lacks __enter__ and __exit__]
> I know this is not a very strong argument, but my gut tells me this
> generalization of the with-statement is wrong, so I'll stick to it
> regardless of the strength of the argument. The real reason will come
> to me.
Perhaps the real reason is that it allows errors to pass silently.
If I write
with foo:
BLOCK
where I should have written
with locked(foo):
BLOCK
...it silently "succeeds" by doing nothing. I CLEARLY intended to
do the appropriate cleanup (or locking, or whatever), but it doesn't
happen.
-- Michael Chermside
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
