Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Guido van Rossum wrote: >>>> Hell, I largely wrote PEP 377 to try to get out of having to document >>>> these semantic problems with the with statement - if I'm having trouble >>>> getting *python-dev* to grasp the problem, what hope do other users of >>>> Python have? >>> Hell, if you can't come up with a real use case, why bother? :-) >> I figured I'd try for a solution that didn't offend my sense of >> aesthetics before caving in and working out how to better document the >> limitations of the status quo :) >> >>> Perhaps you could address my worry about introducing an obscure >>> BaseException subclass that will forever add to the weight of the list >>> of built-in exceptions in all documentation? >> Since this is really just a matter of the aesthetics of the underlying >> design from my point of view rather than solving a real world problem, I >> don't have a good answer for you. >> >> In the absence of reports of actual problems caused by this limitation, >> should I consider the PEP rejected? > > Yes -- sorry for your wasted efforts.
Not wasted - I prefer having this as a recognised limitation of the semantics rather than as an accident of the implementation. Who knows, maybe somebody will come up with a real world use case some day and we can drag the PEP out and dust it off a bit :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
