> At 09:53 AM 4/30/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >I have a counter-proposal: let's drop __context__. [...] > > with mycontext.some_method(prec_incr=2): > > <BODY>
On 4/30/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But what's an appropriate name for some_method? Let's leave that up to the decimal lovers. You could call it push() or stack() or establish() or some other non-descript word. Or manage() or manager(). The method name can't involve the word "context" since the object is already called a context. But that still leaves an infinite number of possible names. :-) > If you can solve the naming issue for these use cases (and I notice you > punted on that issue by calling it "some_method"), then +1 on removing > __context__. Otherwise, I'm -0; we're just fixing one > documentation/explanation problem (that only people writing contexts will > care about) by creating others (that will affect the people *using* > contexts too). To the contrary. Even if we never come up with a perfect name for decimal.Context.some_method(), then we've still solved a documentation problem for 9 out of 10 cases where __context__ is just empty ballast. But I'm sure that if we require that folks come up with a name, they will. Things should be as simple as possible but no simpler. It's pretty clear to me that dropping __context__ approaches this ideal. I'm sorry I didn't push back harder when __context__ was first proposed -- in retrospect, the first 5 months of PEP 343's life, before __context__ (or __with__, as it was originally called) was invented, were by far its happiest times. -- --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
