Craig Yoshioka wrote:
>It is a bit non-normal. but I think this is a good use case as I want to
>create a very simple-to-use system for non-python experts to safely wrap their
>CLI programs in a caching architecture... that's why I lament the inability to
>not use the more streamlined 'with' sy
It is a bit non-normal. but I think this is a good use case as I want to
create a very simple-to-use system for non-python experts to safely wrap their
CLI programs in a caching architecture... that's why I lament the inability to
not use the more streamlined 'with' syntax– abusing the for loo
On 2/28/2012 5:12 PM, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
Craig Yoshioka wrote:
I see that there was previously a PEP to allow the with statement to skip the
enclosing block... this was shot down, and I'm trying to think of the most
elegant alternative. [..]
I would have really liked:
with cachingcontext(
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Craig Yoshioka wrote:
>
> I see that there was previously a PEP to allow the with statement to skip the
> enclosing block... this was shot down, and I'm trying to think of the most
> elegant alternative.
> The best I've found is to abuse the for notation:
>
> for
Craig Yoshioka wrote:
>I see that there was previously a PEP to allow the with statement to skip the
>enclosing block... this was shot down, and I'm trying to think of the most
>elegant alternative. [..]
>I would have really liked:
>with cachingcontext(x):
># create cached resources here
>#
