On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 07:50:20 +1100 Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 02:15:50PM -0500, nate lust wrote: > > > It would be convenient if you could mark in source code that you intended a > > resource to be "moved" and any further access through other bindings are > > not what was intended. This would help catch logic bugs during type > > checking, instead of hitting this issue at runtime. > > I can't help but feel that if your code relies on the concept of > "moving" an object, your concept is already at odds with Python's object > and execution model.
Lots of code probably relies on it. As soon as you wrap a file-like object in a higher-level construct, for example a ZipFile, you'd better not do anything again with the file-like object (*) but let the ZipFile be the sole owner of that object. Same if you pass an open socket to a HTTP library, or anything similar. (*) except closing it at the end, perhaps. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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/LJK7XAAI7WGZ6FYEURPTF53KKLRTZCJ5/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
