On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 05:25:33PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> > they would have already mistaken:
> >
> > with a, b, c: ...
> >
> > the same way. But they haven't.
>
> Right. The presence or absence of parens make a big semantic difference.
from silly.mistakes.programmers.make import (
hands, up, anyone, who, thinks, this, is_, a, tuple)
def function(how, about, this, one): ...
But quite frankly, even if there is some person somewhere who gets
confused and tries to write:
context_managers = (open("a"), open("b", "w"), open("c", "w"))
with context_managers as things:
text = things[0].read()
things[1].write(text)
things[2].write(text.upper())
I simply don't care. They will try it, discover that tuples are not
context managers, fix their code, and move on. (I've made sillier
mistakes, and became a better programmer from it.)
We cannot paralyse ourselves out of fear that somebody, somewhere, will
make a silly mistake. You can try that "with tuple" code right now, and
you will get nice runtime exception. I admit that the error message is
not the most descriptive I've ever seen, but I've seen worse, and any
half-decent programmer can do what they do for any other unexpected
exception: read the Fine Manual, or ask for help, or otherwise debug the
problem. Why should this specific exception be treated as so harmful
that we have to forgo a useful piece of functionality to avoid it?
Some designs are bug-magnets, like the infamous "except A,B" syntax,
which fails silently, doing the wrong thing. Unless someone has a
convincing rationale for how and why this multi-line with will likewise
be a bug-magnet, I don't think that some vague similarity between it and
tuples is justification for rejecting the proposal.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
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
