Barry Warsaw wrote:
it doesn't scale well for more than resource;
'one'?------------------------------^
Indeed.
>>> with open('/etc/passwd') as a, open('/etc/group') as b:
... pass
That's very good news! And this presumably takes care of the "what if
the second open() fails" and "what if b's cleanup depends on a being
there" corner-case stuff. At this point it's not longer the thin layer
of sugar I had listed as an irrelevant gripe.
I'm not sure the with-statement was designed for transactions, but one good
reason why it shouldn't be used for transactions is because (IME) proper
handling doesn't fit into pure try/finally:
We're in full agreement there. The reason I seized on this is that I
saw transaction handling documented on the python site as the main
justifying use-case for the exception-handling design.
So I still say: by all means use it, but let's stay away from
exception-dependent and exception-eating exit handlers for as long as we
can!
Jeroen
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
