The latter, the former isn't currently syntax (as in `with [a, b, c]"` will
throw an error). This was, however, mainly if we were using a variant of
the with syntax, since having
But take the following example:
with ns: # namespace
with ctx: # only known at runtime
You can't have that be a compile time error. Which actually makes the
specific syntax of a bare `with` a strong -1 now, since mixing it with
normal context managers is incredibly ambiguous. This would either need to
be `in` or `given` as mentioned elsewhere, or something like with
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:26 PM Erik <python(a)lucidity.plus.com> wrote:
> On 02/05/16 23:28, Joshua Morton wrote:
> > > It is not reasonable to expect an error to be generated at runtime:
> > > because each and every object would have to be queried as to whether
> > > they have the attribute to know if there is ambiguity on each and
> > > reference to an attribute.
> > It absolutely is:
> It almost certainly is not ;)
> > if you're using an "inferred" syntax like
> > in object:
> > .value
> > but there are multiple such objects to look at, Python immediately
> > throws an error,
> It is not clear what you mean by "multiple such objects". Do you mean
> that 'object' can be some sort of sequence, or do you mean that the
> syntax used for multiple objects is "in object0, object1:" or similar?
> If the latter, then given the choice between the two, I would agree with
> some sort of compile time error over a runtime exception. Why wait until
> If the former (which might mean a runtime error is appropriate), then
> you need to explain what you are suggesting in a lot more detail.
> Regards, E.