>
> This proposal seems to be harking back to the meaning of 'with' in
> earlier languages, e.g. Pascal, where it makes the fields of a
> structure temporarily accessible without qualification.
>
> Before we got the current version of 'with' in Python, there were
> periodic proposals to add a similar kind of 'with', but the
> consensus was that it was better to just assign the object to a
> short local name and qualify with that. As far as I can see, the
> situation hasn't changed.
>
I agree. This is why my preferred solution would be more something like I
proposed, such as:
def my_namespace:
a = 1
def f(x): ...
etc etc.
I also do not see any benefit in being able to provide some arbitrary
string as the module/namespace name, as others have proposed:
with Namespace('ns') as ns: ...
Modules are already named by the file name they reside in. Functions (also
defined using "def") are named using the name given to the function. Same
with a class. Creating a namespace/module type thing that receives its name
as some argument would seem, to me, to be orthogonal to these other
situations.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/2SRX5SHNBTBDH7RV4A35LHSTNN6KTQWL/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
