On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 12:17, Yonatan Zunger wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to bounce this proposal off everyone and see if it's worth
> formulating as a PEP. I haven't found any prior discussion of it, but as we
> all know, searches can easily miss things, so if this is old hat please LMK
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 07:44:26PM -0700, Yonatan Zunger wrote:
> Essentially, a "noop with" improves code health,
I don't think I can accept that as a mere assertion. I'd like to see
some concrete evidence that it does.
> > > For example, this is a good pattern:
> > >
> > > with functionRetur
Terry, let me make sure I'm understanding your responses.
(1) Only certain things should be CM's, and those things should be
explicitly denoted as such.
(2)
> When a function returns something useful or None, I think an immediate
> test is generally good practice. It will usually make the code
I would definitely love that kind of subscoping syntax, but as you say,
that would be a much larger change. :)
The use of this for things like '2+2' would be, as you say, syntactic
sugar; the compiler could even be clever and strip it out of the bytecode
entirely. Its only purpose in that context
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:46 AM David Mertz wrote:
>>
>> I think you probably mean something other than what you actually write. It
>> doesn't really make sense for "any expression" as far as I can tell. What
>> would it possibly mean to write:
>>
>> with (2+2) as foo:
>> print(foo)
>
>
>
Oh, I neglected to include the definition of my boring Foo class:
>>> class Foo(object):
... def __init__(self, val):
... self.val = val
...
The only important thing about it is that it DOES NOT have __enter__() or
__exit__() methods.
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 9:40 PM David Mertz wrot
>
> I think you probably mean something other than what you actually write.
> It doesn't really make sense for "any expression" as far as I can tell.
> What would it possibly mean to write:
>
> with (2+2) as foo:
> print(foo)
>
I have occasionally thought it would be nice to do something like
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 8:17 PM Yonatan Zunger wrote:
> Instead, we should permit any expression to be used. If a value does not
> expose an __enter__ method, it should behave as though its __enter__
> method is return self; if it does not have an __exit__ method, it should
> behave as though tha
On 5/18/2019 8:13 PM, Yonatan Zunger wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to bounce this proposal off everyone and see if it's worth
formulating as a PEP. I haven't found any prior discussion of it, but as
we all know, searches can easily miss things, so if this is old hat
please LMK.
*Summary: *Th
Good idea, +1 from me.
On Sun, May 19, 2019, 3:17 AM Yonatan Zunger wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to bounce this proposal off everyone and see if it's worth
> formulating as a PEP. I haven't found any prior discussion of it, but as we
> all know, searches can easily miss things, so if this
Hi everyone,
I'd like to bounce this proposal off everyone and see if it's worth
formulating as a PEP. I haven't found any prior discussion of it, but as we
all know, searches can easily miss things, so if this is old hat please LMK.
*Summary: *The construction
with expr1 as var1, expr2 as var2,
11 matches
Mail list logo
