Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Hell, I largely wrote PEP 377 to try to get out of having to document these semantic problems with the with statement - if I'm having trouble getting *python-dev* to grasp the problem, what hope do other users of Python have? Hell, if you can't come up with a real use case, why bother? :-) I figured I'd try for a solution that didn't offend my sense of aesthetics before caving in and working out how to better document the
Guido van Rossum wrote: limitations of the status quo :)
Perhaps you could address my worry about introducing an obscure BaseException subclass that will forever add to the weight of the list of built-in exceptions in all documentation? Since this is really just a matter of the aesthetics of the underlying design from my point of view rather than solving a real world problem, I don't have a good answer for you.
In the absence of reports of actual problems caused by this limitation, should I consider the PEP rejected?
Yes -- sorry for your wasted efforts.
Not wasted - I prefer having this as a recognised limitation of the semantics rather than as an accident of the implementation. Who knows, maybe somebody will come up with a real world use case some day and we can drag the PEP out and dust it off a bit :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------