On 13 Oct 2013 16:37, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > > Cameron Simpson writes: > > > But we've got "ignore" in play already. Can't we accept that it is > > somewhat evocative though clearly not perfect for everyone, and > > move on? > > No, that is *way* out. We can overrule the objections, recognizing > that sometimes compromise is the worst of the four possible actions > (this, that, mix, wait).
Right. For the record, this thread did prompt me to consider the new construct anew, but on reflection, I still consider it a reasonable addition to contextlib. It substantially improves the simple cases it is intended to help with, and, if anything, makes overly broad exception suppression *more* obviously dubious (because the name of the construct doesn't match the consequences for multi-line suites). Cheers, Nick. > > But don't ask me to "accept" what I consider to be an idea that admits > a *lot* of improvement.[1] Let time prove me wrong, please. > > > Footnotes: > [1] I've said my piece about "with contextlib.ignore()"; this is not > a reiteration. > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
