On 25Feb2011 13:14, Bruce Leban <bruce@leapyear.org> wrote: | On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> | wrote: | > From: Nick Coghlan | > > It's at least a much larger set than it was back when AMK noticed the | > > deep terminology confusion in the first version of the with statement | > > and context management documentation (which was when Guido applied the | > > Zen and dropped the __context__ method from the protocol). | > | > I'm in favour of the idea, but the terminology problem still | > needs to be solved. I think it's important that the name of the | > object implementing this protocol not have the word "context" in | > it *anywhere*. | > | > I like __with__ as the special method name, as it very obviously | > suggests a tight connection with the with-statement. | | If the field returns a context manager, then the natural name to my mind | would be __context_manager__. It's very long... but accurate. | What I don't like about __with__ is that it's not a noun and doesn't tell me | what value the attribute has or what I would do with it. "enter" and "exit" aren't nouns either. I guess they are events though, whereas __with__ is supposed to return something. Grammar aside I like __with__, personally, since __context__ seems to be out. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ BROCCOLI!! THE ONLY VEGETABLE THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN ADVERB!! - ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson)