Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?
anamax at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 26 23:54:21 CEST 2007
On Jun 26, 10:10 am, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> Andy Freeman <ana... at earthlink.net> writes:
> > Compare that with what a programmer using Python 2.4 has to do if
> > she'd like the functionality provided by 2.5's with statement. Yes,
> > with is "just syntax", but it's extremely useful syntax, syntax that
> > can be easily implemented with lisp-style macros.
> Not really.
Yes really, as the relevant PEP shows. The "it works like" pseudo-
code is very close to how it would be defined with lisp-style macros.
> The with statement's binding targets all have to support
> the protocol, which means a lot of different libraries need redesign.
That's a different problem, and it's reasonably solvable for anyone
who wants to use the roll-your-own with while writing an application
running under 2.4. (You just add the relevant methods to the
The big obstacle is the syntax of the with-statement. There's no way
to define it in python with user-code.
More information about the Python-list