On Fri, Apr 29, 2005, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 10:42 AM 4/29/05 -0700, Aahz wrote: >>On Fri, Apr 29, 2005, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> [Phillip J. Eby] >>>> >>>> Although I'd personally prefer a no-keyword approach: >>>> >>>> synchronized(self): >>>> with_file("foo") as f: >>>> # etc. >>> >>> I'd like that too, but it was shot down at least once. Maybe we can >>> resurrect it? >>> >>> opening("foo") as f: >>> # etc. >> >>I'm still -1 for the same reason I mentioned earlier: function calls >>spanning multiple lines are moderately common in Python code, and it's >>hard to distinguish these cases because multi-line calls usually get >>indented like blocks. > > But the indentation of a multi-line call doesn't start with a colon.
Neither does the un-keyworded block. It starts with a colon on the end of the previous line. I thought part of the point of Python was to minimize reliance on punctuation, especially where it's not clearly visible?
Actually, I've just realized that I was misled by your argument into thinking that the possibility of confusing a multi-line call and a block of this sort is a problem. It's not, because template blocks can be viewed as multi-line calls that just happen to include a block of code as one of the arguments. So, mistaking one for the other when you're just skimming the code and not looking at things like "as" or the ":", is really not important.
In the second place, the most important cue to understanding the behavior of a template block is the template function itself; the bare syntax gives it the most prominence. Blocks like 'synchronized(self):' should be instantly comprehensible to Java programmers, for example, and 'retry(3):' is also pretty self-explanatory. And so far, template function names and signatures have been quite brief as well.
_______________________________________________ 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
