I'm not convinced. On 4/25/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:29 PM 4/25/2006 -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > >See, if @contextfactory functions return a thing *with* a __context__ > >method, how is that usable with "with"? It isn't, unless the thing also > >happens to have __enter__/__exit__ methods. This was the hole in the > >documentation that caused Nick to seek to revisit the decorator name in the > >first place. > > Argh. I seem to be tongue-tied this evening. What I mean is, if > @contextfactory functions' return value is usable as a "with" expression, > that means it must have a __context__ method. But, if you are using > @contextfactory to *define* a __context__ method, the return value should > clearly have __enter__ and __exit__ methods. > > What this means is that if we describe the one method and the two methods > as independent things, there is no *single* name we can use to describe the > return value of a @contextfactory function. It's a wave and a particle, so > we either have to start talking about "wavicles" or have some detailed > explanation of why @contextfactory function return values are both waves > and particles at the same time. > > However, if we say that particles are a kind of wave, and have all the same > features as waves but just add a few others, then we can simply say > @contextfactory functions return particles, and the waviness is implied, > and all is right in the world. At least, until AMK comes along and asks > why you can't separate the particleness from the waveness, which was what > started this whole thing in the first place... :) > > >
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
