On Tue, Apr 26, 2005, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Now there's one more twist, which you may or may not like. Presumably > (barring obfuscations or bugs) the handling of BreakFlow and > ContinueFlow by an iterator (or generator) is consistent for all uses > of that particular iterator. For example synchronized(lock) and > transactional(db) do not behave as loops, and forever() does. Ditto > for handling ReturnFlow. This is why I've been thinking of leaving > out the 'with' keyword: in your mind, these calls would become new > statement types, even though the compiler sees them all the same: > > synchronized(lock): > BLOCK > > transactional(db): > BLOCK > > forever(): > BLOCK > > opening(filename) as f: > BLOCK
That's precisely why I think we should keep the ``with``: the point of Python is to have a restricted syntax and requiring a prefix for these constructs makes it easier to read the code. You'll soon start to gloss over the ``with`` but it will be there as a marker for your subconscious. -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it." _______________________________________________ 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
