On 06/19/2016 08:14 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 06/19/2016 09:01 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 06/19/2016 04:56 AM, Joonas Liik wrote:
On 18 June 2016 at 23:47, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 06/18/2016 07:05 AM, Joonas Liik wrote:
the leading dot does not resolve the ambiguity that arises from:
with ob_a:
with ob_b:
.attr_c = 42 # which object are we modifying right now?
The innermost one. Why would it be anything else?
What if ob_b does not have attribute attr_c but ob_a does?
Good question. I would say that _only_ the innermost with object is
searched, and if it doesn't have the requested attribute an
AttributeError is raised. Otherwise, as you say, it could be a
nightmare to maintain.
But that wouldn't work either because it would make it impossible to
*set* attributes on an object.
Sure it would, just like any 'this_thing.whatever = 9' works just fine
if 'this_thing' doesn't already a `whatever` attribute.
The only thing that would change is being able to omit the 'this_thing'
portion; if you want to access an earlier 'with' obj, then you must be
explicit:
with ob_a:
with ob_b:
ob_a.whatever = 9
.something_else = 10
Python's dynamic nature just doesn't lend itself to this kind of ambiguity.
This is no more ambiguous than any other nested structure and, in some
cases, even simpler.
--
~Ethan
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
