pyideas at rebertia.com
Wed Jan 14 09:24:33 CET 2009
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Carl Johnson <carl at carlsensei.com> wrote:
> From the department of doomed ideas:
> data = f.read() with open("file.txt") as f
> Has the idea of a with-expression already been preemptively shot down?
> I guess the objection is that the above could easily be rewritten as
> data = read_and_close("file.txt")
> if one defines the appropriate function. The counter-objection is that why
> do I need to write a micro-function when the with-statement already does
> what I want, except it takes up two lines when it would still be clear as
> one line. But then the counter-counter-objection is that you can write
> with open("file.txt") as f: data = f.read()
> today. To which the counter-counter-counter-objection is, yeah, but that
> looks cluttered and ugly in a way that the first example doesn't... Except
> the first example is sort of cluttered.
> I dunno, what do other people think about this? Doomed or super-doomed?
Fairly doomed, IMHO. To be consistent at all, Python would also have
to allow the related Perlisms of:
x **= 2 while x < y
x += y for y in z
x.sort() if should_sort
which seem pretty gross to me as the control structure gets somewhat
hidden. And as you pointed out, it's just plain unnecessary since such
code can already be written as a one-liner, with the advantage of less
reformatting if it later becomes a multiliner. Also, having a
consistent order of block-statement before block-body enhances the
uniformity of the language. About the only good examples of block
bodies coming before block statements which I can think of offhand are
do-while and Haskell's `where` clause, which both seem to me to be
sufficiently special cases as to not have bearing here.
That's my 2¢ anyway.
Follow the path of the Iguana...
More information about the Python-ideas