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,
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
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
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
>
> 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
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
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)
>
>
>
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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
