At 04:51 PM 5/16/2005 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: >Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > This makes it seem awkward for e.g. "do self.__lock", which doesn't > > make any sense. But the extra call needed to make it "do > > locking(self.__lock)" seems sort of gratuitous. > >How about > > do holding(self.__lock):
I simply mean that having to have any wrapper at all for common cases seems silly. >It doesn't work so well when you don't already have an >object with one obvious interpretation of what you want >to do 'with' it, e.g. you have a pathname and you want >to open a file. Um, what's wrong with 'with open("filename") as f'? > I've already argued against giving file >objects __enter__ and __exit__ methods. And I'm -42 on >giving them to strings. :-) If strings had them, __enter__ would return self, and __exit__ would do nothing. I fail to see a problem. :) _______________________________________________ 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