Christian Boos wrote: > - We could rename @run_as_transaction to @with_transaction, suggesting > the evolution to using 'with' when moving to 2.5, where this will become > "with transaction(env, db) as db: ..."
I like that. +1 > - We could return True/False/None depending on the outcome: True when > committed, False when rollbacked, None if still within a transaction I don't think there will be an equivalent mechanism when using the "with" statement, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to introduce that. -- Remy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
