Nick Coghlan wrote: > Raymond Hettinger wrote: > >>Whatever term is selected, it should be well thought-out and added to >>the glossary. The choice of words will likely have a great effect on >>learnability and on how people think about the new tool.
I tried to bring this up on python-list, but I didn't get much of a response. I suggested "witherator" as a too cute alternative, but was hoping to get some alternatives to that. http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2005-June/286684.html > For 'with' statements, all we really know is that the object may do > something before the suite it is entered, and something else as the > suite is exited. Other than that, it could be (or do) anything. Hence, > 'user defined statement'. I would say the key attribute is the "and something else as the suite is exited" part. With out that, the "with" statement isn't needed and a regular function or generator would work. A term which stresses finalizing may be appropriate. > With that piece of terminology in place, the natural outcome was to > call objects that supplied __enter__ and __exit__ methods "statement > templates". Will objects be created that can be used with and without "with" statements? I think that this could be a source of confusion. It seems to me that "with" statements require a "with" object, and that those objects probably shouldn't be used without the "with" statement. Having a clear separation might be a good idea. Should there be a "with" (different name most likely) type? Would there be any advantages of a "with" base object that can have constructor methods that can accept either a try-finally generator or two functions to insert into the __enter__ and __exit__ methods as arguments? For example, call a with object a "manage" object then: with manage.generator(open_file_gen) as f: BLOCK with manage.enter_exit(lock_func, unlock_func) as lock: BLOCK > I also used this term to come up with PEP 346's name for the generator > to statement template conversion decorator: "stmt_template" > > (Like others, the fact that 'with' is a verb makes it very hard for me > to interpret "with_template" correctly when I see it as a decorator - > I always want to ask "with which template?") I agree, the decorator adds a layer of complexity to it. I think the with-generator behavior needs to be described without the decorator version first, then the decorator becomes syntactic sugar to make it easier to do the same thing. Ron _______________________________________________ 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
