Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> On 04 Sep 2012 01:13:09 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> declaimed the following in
> gmane.comp.python.general:
> > What is the rationale for complicating [the builtin] open instead of
> > telling people to just call their opener directly?
>
> To avoid the new syntax would mean coding the example as
>
> f = os.fdopen(os.open("newfile", flags | os.O_EXCL), "w")
>
> which does NOT look any cleaner to me... Especially not if "opener" is
> to be used in more than one location.
Exactly. That's not what was asked, though. Steven asked why not call
the opener.
So, having written the opener:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:29:05 +0200, Christian Heimes wrote:
> > import os
> >
> > def opener(file, flags):
> > return os.open(file, flags | os.O_EXCL)
why not call that directly?
f = opener(file, flags)
It certainly is cleaner than either of the alternatives so far, and it
doesn't add a parameter to the builtin.
> Furthermore, using "opener" could allow for a localized change to
> affect all open statements in the module -- change file path, open for
> string I/O rather than file I/O, etc.
I don't know of any real-life code which would be significantly improved
by that. Can you point us to some?
--
\ “I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. |
`\ But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take |
_o__) it seriously.” —Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
