python-peps/pep-0343.txt

370 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
PEP: 343
Title: Anonymous Block Redux
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Guido van Rossum
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/plain
Created: 13-May-2005
Post-History:
Introduction
After a lot of discussion about PEP 340 and alternatives, I've
decided to withdraw PEP 340 and propose a slight variant on PEP
310.
Motivation and Summary
PEP 340, Anonymous Block Statements, combined many powerful ideas:
using generators as block templates, adding exception handling and
finalization to generators, and more. Besides praise it received
a lot of opposition from people who didn't like the fact that it
was, under the covers, a (optential) looping construct. This
meant that break and continue in a block-statement would break or
continue the block-statement, even if it was used as a non-looping
resource management tool.
But the final blow came when I read Raymond Chen's rant about
flow-control macros[1]. Raymond argues convincingly that hiding
flow control in macros makes your code inscrutable, and I find
that his argument applies to Python as well as to C. I realized
that PEP 340 templates can hide all sorts of control flow; for
example, its example 4 (auto_retry()) catches exceptions and
repeats the block up to three times.
However, the with-statement of PEP 310 does *not* hide control
flow, in my view: while a finally-suite temporarily suspends the
control flow, in the end, the control flow resumes as if the
finally-suite wasn't there at all. Consider this:
with VAR = EXPR:
BLOCK1
BLOCK2
Here, just as if the first line was "if True" instead, we know
that if BLOCK1 completes without an exception, BLOCK2 will be
reached; and if BLOCK1 raises an exception or executes a
non-local goto (a break, continue or return), BLOCK2 is *not*
reached. The magic added by the with-statement at the end doesn't
affect this.
(You may ask, what if a bug in the __exit__ method causes an
exception? Then all is lost -- but this is no worse than with
other exceptions; the nature of exceptions is that they can happen
*anywhere*, and you just have to live with that. Even if you
write bug-free code, a KeyboardInterrupt exception can still cause
it to exit between any two virtual machine opcodes.)
This argument almost led me to endorse PEP 310, but I had one idea
left from the PEP 340 euphoria that I wasn't ready to drop: using
generators as "templates" for abstractions like acquiring and
releasing a lock or opening and closing a file is a powerful idea,
as can be seen by looking at the examples in that PEP.
Inspired by a counter-proposal to PEP 340 by Phillip Eby I tried
to create a decorator that would turn a suitable generator into an
object with the necessary __entry__ and __exit__ methods. Here I
ran into a snag: while it wasn't too hard for the locking example,
it was impossible to do this for the opening example. The idea
was to define the template like this:
@with_template
def opening(filename):
f = open(filename)
yield f
f.close()
and used it like this:
with f = opening(filename):
...read data from f...
The problem is that in PEP 310, the result of calling EXPR is
assigned directly to VAR, and then VAR's __exit__ method is called
upon exit from BLOCK1. But here, VAR clearly needs to receive the
opened file, and that would mean that __exit__ would have to be a
method on the file.
While this can be solved using a proxy class, this is awkward and
made me realize that a slightly different translation would make
writing the desired decorator a piece of cake: let VAR receive the
result from calling the __enter__ method, and save the value of
EXPR to call its __exit__ method later. Then the decorator can
return an instance of a wrapper class whose __enter__ method calls
the generator's next() method and returns whatever next() returns;
the wrapper instance's __exit__ method calls next() again but
expects it to raise StopIteration. (Details below in the section
Optional Generator Decorator.)
So now the final hurdle was that the PEP 310 syntax:
with VAR = EXPR:
BLOCK1
would be deceptive, since VAR does *not* receive the value of
EXPR. Given PEP 340, it was an easy step to:
with EXPR as VAR:
BLOCK1
or, using an alternate keyword that has been proposed a number of
times:
do EXPR as VAR:
BLOCK1
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
Use Cases
See the Examples section near the end.
Specification
A new statement is proposed with the syntax:
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
do EXPR as VAR:
BLOCK
Here, 'do' and 'as' are new keywords; EXPR is an arbitrary
expression (but not an expression-list) and VAR is an arbitrary
assignment target (which may be a comma-separated list).
The "as VAR" part is optional.
The choice of the 'do' keyword is provisional; an alternative
under consideration is 'with'.
A yield-statement is illegal inside BLOCK. This is because the
do-statement is translated into a try/finally statement, and yield
is illegal in a try/finally statement.
The translation of the above statement is:
abc = EXPR
exc = () # Or (None, None, None) ?
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
try:
try:
VAR = abc.__enter__()
BLOCK
except:
exc = sys.exc_info()
raise
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
finally:
abc.__exit__(exc)
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
Here, the variables 'abc' and 'exc' are internal variables and not
accessible to the user; they will most likely be implemented as
special registers or stack positions.
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
If the "as VAR" part of the syntax is omitted, the "VAR =" part of
the translation is omitted (but abc.__enter__() is still called).
The calling convention for abc.__exit__() is: as follows. If the
finally-suite was reached through normal completion of BLOCK or
through a non-local goto (a break, continue or return statement
in BLOCK), abc.__exit__() is called without arguments (or perhaps
with three None arguments?). If the finally-suite was reached
through an exception raised in BLOCK, abc.__exit__() is called
with three arguments representing the exception type, value, and
traceback.
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
Optional Generator Decorator
It is possible to write a decorator that makes it possible to use
a generator that yields exactly once to control a do-statement.
Here's a sketch of such a decorator:
class Wrapper(object):
def __init__(self, gen):
self.gen = gen
self.state = "initial"
def __enter__(self):
assert self.state == "initial"
self.state = "entered"
try:
return self.gen.next()
except StopIteration:
self.state = "error"
raise RuntimeError("template generator didn't yield")
def __exit__(self, *args):
assert self.state == "entered"
self.state = "exited"
try:
self.gen.next()
except StopIteration:
return
else:
self.state = "error"
raise RuntimeError("template generator didn't stop")
def do_template(func):
def helper(*args, **kwds):
return Wrapper(func(*args, **kwds))
return helper
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
This decorator could be used as follows:
@do_template
def opening(filename):
f = open(filename) # IOError here is untouched by Wrapper
yield f
f.close() # Ditto for errors here (however unlikely)
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
A robust implementation of such a decorator should be made part of
the standard library.
Other Optional Extensions
It would be possible to endow certain objects, like files,
sockets, and locks, with __enter__ and __exit__ methods so that
instead of writing:
do locking(myLock):
BLOCK
one could write simply:
do myLock:
BLOCK
I think we should be careful with this; it could lead to mistakes
like:
f = open(filename)
do f:
BLOCK1
do f:
BLOCK2
which does not do what one might think (f is closed when BLOCK2 is
entered).
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
Examples
Several of these examples contain "yield None". If PEP 342 is
accepted, these can be changed to just "yield".
1. A template for ensuring that a lock, acquired at the start of a
block, is released when the block is left:
@do_template
def locking(lock):
lock.acquire()
yield None
lock.release()
Used as follows:
do locking(myLock):
# Code here executes with myLock held. The lock is
# guaranteed to be released when the block is left (even
# if via return or by an uncaught exception).
2. A template for opening a file that ensures the file is closed
when the block is left:
@do_template
def opening(filename, mode="r"):
f = open(filename, mode)
yield f
f.close()
Used as follows:
do opening("/etc/passwd") as f:
for line in f:
print line.rstrip()
3. A template for committing or rolling back a database
transaction; this is written as a class rather than as a
decorator since it requires access to the exception information:
class transactional:
def __init__(self, db):
self.db = db
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
def __enter__(self):
pass
def __exit__(self, *args):
if args and args[0] is not None:
self.db.rollback()
else:
self.db.commit()
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
4. Example 1 rewritten without a generator:
class locking:
def __init__(self, lock):
self.lock = lock
def __enter__(self):
self.lock.acquire()
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
def __exit__(self, *args):
self.lock.release()
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
(This example is easily modified to implement the other
examples; it shows how much simpler generators are for the same
purpose.)
5. Redirect stdout temporarily:
@do_template
def redirecting_stdout(new_stdout):
save_stdout = sys.stdout
sys.stdout = new_stdout
yield None
sys.stdout = save_stdout
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
Used as follows:
do opening(filename, "w") as f:
do redirecting_stdout(f):
print "Hello world"
This isn't thread-safe, of course, but neither is doing this
same dance manually. In a single-threaded program (e.g., a
script) it is a totally fine way of doing things.
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
6. A variant on opening() that also returns an error condition:
@do_template
def opening_w_error(filename, mode="r"):
try:
f = open(filename, mode)
except IOError, err:
yield None, err
else:
yield f, None
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
f.close()
Used as follows:
do opening_w_error("/etc/passwd", "a") as f, err:
if err:
print "IOError:", err
else:
f.write("guido::0:0::/:/bin/sh\n")
7. Another useful example would be an operation that blocks
signals. The use could be like this:
import signal
do signal.blocking():
# code executed without worrying about signals
An optional argument might be a list of signals to be blocked;
by default all signals are blocked. The implementation is left
as an exercise to the reader.
8. Another use for this feature is the Decimal context. It's left
as an exercise for the reader. (Mail it to me if you'd like to
see it here.)
References
[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/01/06/347666.aspx
2005-05-13 20:08:20 -04:00
Copyright
This document has been placed in the public domain.