(original) (raw)

On 13 Oct 2013 16:37, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@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