On Feb 29, 2012 4:56 PM, "Ethan Furman" <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>
> Craig Yoshioka wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>
>>> From PEP 343:
>>>
>>> But the final blow came when I read Raymond Chen's rant about
>>> flow-control macros[1]. Raymond argues convincingly that hiding
>>> flow control in macros makes your code inscrutable, and I find
>>> that his argument applies to Python as well as to C.
>>>
>>> So it is explicitly stated that the with statement should not be
>>> capable of controlling the flow.
>>>
>>
>> I read the rant, and I agree in principle, but I think it's also a far stretch to draw a line between a very confusing non-standard example of macros in C, and documentable behavior of a built-in statement. That is, the only reason you might say with would be hiding flow-control is because people don't currently expect it to. I also think that when people use non-builtin contextmanagers it's usually within a very specific... context (*dammit*), and so they are likely to look up why they are using an object as a context manager. That's where you would document the behavior:
>>
>> with uncached(path):
>> # code here only executes if the path does not exist
>
>
> I am -1 on the idea.
>
> if / while / for / try are *always* flow control.
>
> Your proposal would have 'with' sometimes being flow control, and sometimes not, and the only way to know is look at the object's code and/or docs. This makes for a lot more complication for very little gain.
>
> ~Ethan~
>
>
I like the general idea, but a conditionally conditional control syntax is a readability nightmare., however, I wonder if the case in which the with statement act as a conditional could be explicit so a reader can distinguish between those that will always execute their body and those which may or may not.
with cached(key):
do_caching()
else:
update_exp(key)
_______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas