Python "with"

[Laurent Pointal]

Ivan Voras a écrit :
> Laurent Pointal wrote:
> 
>> The ugly part is the 'tmp' name, try to choose a name with a proper 
>> meaning about what it is really, and it become clean and readable:
>>
>> filerefs = some.big.structure.or.nested.object.with.file.references
>> filerefs.encoding = "utf-8"
>> filerefs.name = "MyFileName.txt"
>> filerefs.use_quotes = True
>>
>> Isn't it ?
> 
> Well, no, but this might be due to personal tastes. At least, I don't 
> think it's better then some other alternatives. For example, in C99 you 
> can do:
> 
> static struct option_s foo_option = {
>     .name = "foo",
>     .type = O_STRING,
>     .def_value = "default"
> };
> 
> At least to me, this looks even better than the Pascal's syntax.

If its at construction time, you can do the same with Python:

class option_s(object) :
     def __init__(self,**initializers) :
         self.__dict__.update(initializers)

foo_option = option_s(
     name = "foo",
     type_ = O_STRING,
     def_value = "default"
     )


And if the class has no such construction idiom, you can play like this:

x = X()
x.__dict__.update(dict(
     name = "foo",
     type_ = O_STRING,
     def_value = "default"
))


Note: this directly manipulate objects attributes - some times its 
preffered to use ad-hoc methods.

Note2: I prefer the "namespace.name = value" solution, more readable.

Note3: Its funny to see how Python users tries to change the language, 
does this occure with C, C++, Java, C# ?