On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 November 2016 at 17:18, Ram Rachum <r...@rachum.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> There's still something seriously odd going in relation to your > >> overall resource management architecture if "cleanup, maybe, unless I > >> decide to tell you not to" is a behaviour you regularly need. Cleanup > >> functions in a garbage collected environment should be idempotent, so > >> it doesn't matter if you redundantly call them again later. > > > > > > Well, you think it's weird that I want a `finally` clause to not be > called > > in some circumstances. Do you think it's equally weird to want an > `__exit__` > > method that is not called in some circumstances? > > Yes, as the whole point of __exit__ is that the interpreter goes to > great lengths to make sure it always gets called, no matter what else > happens with the currently executing frame (whether it finishes > normally, returns early, breaks out of a loop, continues with the next > iteration, raises an exception, or gets suspended without ever > resuming normal execution). > > If you don't want that behaviour, then __exit__ likely isn't the right > tool (although it may provide the technical basis for a selective > cleanup framework). > > Cheers, > Nick. > > I understand your point of view. I see that Python does allow you to not call `__exit__` if you don't want to, so I wish it'll have the same approach to not calling `generator.close()` if you don't want to. (This is what it's really about, not `finally`.)
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
