Yes, although I think we should perhaps return a single object that holds
both the fd and the process object.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM, David van Leeuwen <
david.vanleeu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another case for open()!, I suppose, is the construction
>
> fd, process = open(`command`)
>
>
Another case for open()!, I suppose, is the construction
fd, process = open(`command`)
which I wasn't able to fit in the do-block construction.
---david
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 5:43:36 PM UTC+2, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> I was not aware that you could do multiple `as` clauses on a
I was not aware that you could do multiple `as` clauses on a single `with`
line – that makes the construct considerably more useful since it reduces
the indentation. However, it still doesn't address cases where you don't
want to give the object to be finalized a name, e.g.
Hello,
On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:38:04 PM UTC+2, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> The reason as Cedric points out is that the do block syntax is just sugar
> for an anonymous function body. There is a plan to provide a more
> convenient mechanism for ensuring finalization: #7721
>
I'm not sure why assignments are local, but I'd guess that it's for
consistency. function foo(x, y) ... end is syntactic sugar for foo =
(x,y)->..., and likewise do syntax is also sugar for creating a function
and passing it as the first argument. Since
function foo(x)
a = x
end
does not
