As best I can tell, the anonymous blocks are used to take
care of boilerplate code without changing the scope -- exactly
what macros are used for. The only difference I see is that in
this case, the macros are limited to entire (possibly compound)
statements.
To make this more concrete,
Guido:
>> in synchronized(the_lock):
>> BODY
Nick Coghlan:
> s/in/with/ to get PEP 310.
...
>Guido's recent screed crystallised the idea of writing resources
> as two-part generators:
...
[Adding Reinhold Birkenfeld's suggestion of a blank yield]
> def my_resource():
> print "Hi!" # Do entrance code
> yield # Go on with the contents of the 'with' block
> print "Bye!" # Do exit code
The macro itself looks reasonable -- so long as there is only
ever one changing block inside the macro. I'm not sure that
is a reasonable restriction, but the alternative is ugly enough
that maybe passing around locals() starts to be just as good.
What about a block that indicates the enclosed namespaces
will collapse a level?
defmacro myresource(filename):
<make explicit calls to named callback "functions", but
within the same locals() scope.>
with myresource("thefile"):
def reader():
...
def writer():
...
def fn():
....
Then myresource, reader, writer, and fn would share a
namespace without having to manually pass it around.
-jJ
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
