On 5/2/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nick, do you have it in you to fix PEP 343? Or at least come up with a
> > draft patch? We can take this off-linel with all the +0's and +1's
> > coming in I'm pretty comfortable with this change now, although we
> > should probably wait until
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 5/1/06, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Don't forget that the majority of users will never have heard any of
>> these discussions nor have used 2.5a1 or 2.5a2. Choose the best term
>> for them, not for the readers of python-dev.
>
> I couldn't agree more!
On Tue, May 02, 2006, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> the context expression in the with statement produces a context
>> manager with __enter__ and __exit__ methods which set up and tear
>> down a managed context for the body of the with statement. This is
>> very similar to your late
At 08:29 PM 5/1/2006 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>'localcontext' would probably work as at least an interim name for such a
>function.
>
> with decimal.localcontext() as ctx:
> # use the new context here
And the "as ctx" should be unnecessary for most use cases, if localcontext
has an app
On 5/1/06, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't forget that the majority of users will never have heard any of
> these discussions nor have used 2.5a1 or 2.5a2. Choose the best term
> for them, not for the readers of python-dev.
I couldn't agree more! (Another thought, occasionally us
On May 1, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 1. PEP 343, 2.5 alpha 1, 2.5 alpha 2 and the discussions here have
> no doubt
> seriously confused the meaning of the term 'context manager' for a
> lot of
> people (you can certainly put me down as one such person). Anyone
> not already
> c
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I've called that the "context entry value" in a few places (I don't think any
> of them were in the actual documentation though).
that doesn't really give me the right associations (I want something
that makes it clear that this is an "emphemeral" object).
> A sample modifi
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> a distinct term for "whatever the __enter__ method returns" (i.e.
> the thing assigned to the target list) would still be nice.
I've called that the "context entry value" in a few places (I don't think any
of them were in the actual documentation though).
A sample modifica
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> the context expression in the with statement produces a context
>> manager with __enter__ and __exit__ methods which set up and tear down
>> a managed context for the body of the with statement. This is very
>> similar to your later suggestion of contex
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Also a thought on terminology. Even though it seems I
>> may have been the person who thought it up originally,
>> I'm not sure I like the term "manager". It seems rather
>> wooly, and it's not clear whether a "context manager"
>> is supposed to manage jus
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> the context expression in the with
> statement produces a context manager with __enter__ and __exit__ methods
> which set up and tear down a managed context for the body of the with
> statement. This is very similar to your later suggestion of context
> guard and guarded c
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Also a thought on terminology. Even though it seems I
> may have been the person who thought it up originally,
> I'm not sure I like the term "manager". It seems rather
> wooly, and it's not clear whether a "context manager"
> is supposed to manage just one context or multiple
>
Greg Ewing wrote:
> I've been thinking about the terms "guarded context"
> and "context guard". We could say that the with-statement
> executes its body in a guarded context (an abstract
> notion, not a concrete object). To do this, it creates
> a context guard (a concrete object) with __enter__
>
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I believe the context API design has gotten totally out of hand.
My thoughts exactly!
> I have a counter-proposal: let's drop __context__... would it
> really be such a big deal to let the user make an explicit call to
> some appropriately named method?
Another possibi
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 08:08 PM 4/30/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> If you object against the extra typing, we'll first laugh at you
>> (proposals that *only* shave a few characters of a common idiom aren't
>> all that popular in these parts), and then suggest that you can spell
>> foo.
At 08:08 PM 4/30/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>If you object against the extra typing, we'll first laugh at you
>(proposals that *only* shave a few characters of a common idiom aren't
>all that popular in these parts), and then suggest that you can spell
>foo.some_method() as foo().
Okay, y
[I'm cutting straight to the chase here]
On 4/30/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The downside of this over the __context__ method is that it is neither nesting
> nor thread-safe.
This argument is bogus.
We currently have two types of objects involved in with-statements:
those whose
> At 09:53 AM 4/30/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >I have a counter-proposal: let's drop __context__.
[...]
> > with mycontext.some_method(prec_incr=2):
> >
On 4/30/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what's an appropriate name for some_method?
Let's leave that up
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 4/30/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A few things from the pre-alpha2 context management terminology review
>> have
>> had a chance to run around in the back of my head for a while now, and
>> I'd
>> like to return to a topic Paul Moore brought up durin
On 4/30/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/30/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A few things from the pre-alpha2 context management terminology review have
> > had a chance to run around in the back of my head for a while now, and I'd
> > like to return to a topic
At 09:53 AM 4/30/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>I have a counter-proposal: let's drop __context__. Nearly all use
>cases have __context__ return self. In the remaining cases, would it
>really be such a big deal to let the user make an explicit call to
>some appropriately named method? The onl
On 4/30/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few things from the pre-alpha2 context management terminology review have
> had a chance to run around in the back of my head for a while now, and I'd
> like to return to a topic Paul Moore brought up during that discussion.
I believe the con
A few things from the pre-alpha2 context management terminology review have
had a chance to run around in the back of my head for a while now, and I'd
like to return to a topic Paul Moore brought up during that discussion.
Paul had a feeling there should be two generator decorators in contextlib
23 matches
Mail list logo