On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> Yeah, so my claim this is simply a non-problem, and you've pretty much >> just proved that by failing to come up with pointers to actual code that >> would suffer from this. Clearly you're not aware of any such code. > > > In response I'd ask Yuri to come up with examples of real > code that would benefit significantly from being able to > make context changes without wrapping them in a with > statement.
A real-code example: make it possible to implement decimal.setcontext() on top of PEP 550 semantics. I still feel that there's some huge misunderstanding in the discussion: PEP 550 does not promote "not using context managers". It simply implements a low-level mechanism to make it possible to implement context managers for generators/coroutines/etc. Whether this API is used to write context managers or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion. How does threading.local() promote or demote using of context managers? The answer: it doesn't. Same answer is for PEP 550, which is a similar mechanism. Yury _______________________________________________ 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
