[Python-ideas] With expressions

[Robert Vanden Eynde]

>
>
>
>
> A with-statement is great for when you care about the
> implementation details. Somebody has to care about the process of
> opening a file, reading from it and closing it. But when you *don't*
> care about those implementation details, a simple interface like a
> read() function is superior to a with-statement, *or* a with-expression,
> which shoves those details in your face.
>

Totally agree. In the case where you care about the implementation details.
You can explain to a beginner:

something = (f.read() with open('...') as f)

Is another way to write:

with open('filename') as f:
    something = f.read()

Exactly like the ternary if.

And I agree that because with is often relevant for "implementation
details" or beginning use as a "enter.. exit' statement (like a cpp
destructor), it matches more imperative programming.

with stack.push_matrix(Scale(4)):
    triangle = draw_triangle_using(stack)

Is used for it's "enter/close" functionality, but can still be used like:

triangle = (draw_triangle_using(stack) with stack.push_matrix(Scale(4)) as
NotUsed)

But the "as close" is useless here.


>
> > and in most cases when
> > reading the code you then have to look at the function to see if
> > anything else is done there.
>
> I doubt that many people really spend a lot of time digging into
> functions to see whether they do more than what they say. Unless and
> until I ran into unexpected problems, I'd be no more inclined to look
> into a function called "read" than I would be to do the same to len or
> math.sin. I'm sure it does what it says it does.
>

Fair point, the "def" statements generally are passed when read so they
don't really count as overhead.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20180804/55147648/attachment.html>