Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 10/16/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope you reverted the status to "Proposed"...
I hadn't, but I've now fixed that in CVS (both in the PEP and the PEP index),
and added some text into the PEP saying why it was reverted to Draft.
> On the latter: I think it shouldn't; I don't like this kind of magic.
> I'll have to read it before I can comment on the rest.
I don't particularly like treating __with__ specially either, but I'm not sure
I like the alternative.
The alternative is that we'd never be able to safely define a __with__ method
directly on generators - the reason is that we would want a "def __with__"
where the @context decorator has been forgotten to trigger a TypeError when it
is used. If generator-iterators were to provide a context manager to
automatically invoke close(), then leaving out "@context" would result in a
very obscure bug (as g.close() would be used to finish the context, instead of
g.next() or g.throw()).
On the other hand, if the context decorator is invoked automatically when a
generator function is supplied to populate the __with__ slot, then using a
generator to define a __with__ method will "just work", instead of "only works
if you also apply the context decorator"
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
