On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:58:56 -0400, Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote: > The feature (*and* its name) is a fine solution for the problem that > it solves and is an improvement over status quo. > > I find > > with ignore(OSError): > os.unlink(path) > > much easier to read than > > try: > os.unlink(path) > except OSError: > pass > > Yes, this feature can be abused with multiple statements in the with > block, but so can try/except. People who write code using contextlib > are expected to know that it is not a good idea to keep resources > longer than necessary and multiple unrelated statements within the > with block will raise a mental red flag. It is also easy for > lint-like tools to warn about abuse of ignore().
With blocks *very often* include multiple lines of code, because the resource shouldn't be released until all those lines are done. try/except blocks with more than a couple lines of code are a code smell. with replaces try/finally, not try/except. I have no problem with Nick deciding that none of the arguments convince him and leaving it in. We'll see how it turns out in practice :) --David _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
