summarizing: 1- the with statement should not be used for this 2- I overrated the code optimization of this change, optimization is not sufficiently large and nothing that can't be done without this syntax 3- picking a keyword would be non-trivial, 'using' has drawbacks, 'in' might be a candidate (frankly I like it) 4- the benefits of .dotted shorthand syntax are disputed, some think it's pythonic and readable, others don't think it is 5 - Pascal style has been discussed in the past and has its own faq explaining rejection. So anyway a dot would be needed, this would also take away possible ambiguity between locals and object properties About 4, the argument that full variable writing is more explicit, hence Pythonic: I think clinging to 20 same-indentation level references to 'obj.' is explicit to the point of sillyness. We also dont use locals.obj.x because the localness of a variable is also present without explicity so a bit of pragmatism could have a voice. People who think .dotted syntax is less readable could still use the familiar syntax. That would lead to two ways to do the same thing but on the same level as the type of decision as to whether to use a lambda or a full function. In the end implementation of this proposal would offer syntactical sugar without added functionality, especially given point 2 above. That would make the feature as desirable as the number of happy eyebrows when looking at code like this: in disussion: .arguments = [a, b, c] .argue() .summarize() x = .eastheticfactor .decision = .calculate(x) On 5/3/2016 4:50 AM, python-ideas-request@python.org wrote:

Send Python-ideas mailing list submissions to python-ideas@python.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to python-ideas-request@python.org

You can reach the person managing the list at python-ideas-owner@python.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Python-ideas digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Object grabbing (Guido van Rossum) 2. Re: Object grabbing (Steven D'Aprano) 3. Re: Object grabbing (Jonathan Goble) 4. Re: Object grabbing (Bruce Leban)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 18:47:00 -0700 From: Guido van Rossum To: Joshua Morton Cc: "python-ideas@python.org" Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Object grabbing Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Joshua Morton wrote:

...

Which actually makes the specific syntax of a bare `with` a strong -1 now, since mixing it with normal context managers is incredibly ambiguous.

I'm glad you eventually reached this conclusion.