New submission from Steven D'Aprano:
The FAQs include a discussion of the rejected Pascal "with" statement (different from the Python `with`). From time to time people propose variants of it, such as using a leading dot to make it unambiguous.
Guido has just firmly rejected the latest such proposal. The FAQ should be updated to make it clear that even with a leading dot the proposal is dead, with a link to Guido's pronouncement.
---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 264832 nosy: docs@python, steven.daprano priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Add Guido's rejection notice to the "with" FAQ versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.3, Python 3.4, Python 3.5, Python 3.6
Change by Irit Katriel firstname.lastname@example.org:
---------- versions: +Python 3.10, Python 3.9 -Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.3, Python 3.4, Python 3.5, Python 3.6