By his reasoning it simply shouldn't exist. Instead you would access the
information only like this:
with open("myfile.dat") as f:
data = f.read()
Which is my preferred way to work with resources requiring cleanup in
python anyways, as it ensures I have the least chance of messing things up,
and that all of my resources are disposed of properly during the unwind.
It's a hell of a lot cleaner than remembering to call the appropriate
cleanup functions at every callsite, and the resultant values can never be
in a bad state ( at least due to programmer function-ordering fault,
underlying file i/o errors and things can still cause errors, but not due
to API mis-usage ).
Python 3's multiple-with-statement-target syntax was backported to 2.7 as
well, flattening the deep nests of with statements otherwise needed to
implement this pattern
http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.7.html#other-language-changes
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Gregory Ewing
<greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz>wrote:
> Wayne Werner wrote:
>
>> You don't ever want a class that has functions that need to be called in
>> a certain order to *not* crash.
>>
>
> That seems like an overly broad statement. What
> do you think the following should do?
>
> f = open("myfile.dat")
> f.close()
> data = f.read()
>
>
> --
> Greg
> --
> http://mail.python.org/**mailman/listinfo/python-list<http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
