PEP: 310
Title: Reliable Acquisition/Release Pairs
Author: Michael Hudson <mwh@python.net>,
        Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com>
Status: Rejected
Type: Standards Track
Created: 18-Dec-2002
Python-Version: 2.4
Post-History:


Abstract
========

It would be nice to have a less typing-intense way of writing::

    the_lock.acquire()
    try:
        ....
    finally:
        the_lock.release()

This PEP proposes a piece of syntax (a 'with' block) and a
"small-i" interface that generalizes the above.


Pronouncement
=============

This PEP is rejected in favor of :pep:`343`.


Rationale
=========

One of the advantages of Python's exception handling philosophy is
that it makes it harder to do the "wrong" thing (e.g. failing to
check the return value of some system call).  Currently, this does
not apply to resource cleanup.  The current syntax for acquisition
and release of a resource (for example, a lock) is::

   the_lock.acquire()
   try:
       ....
   finally:
       the_lock.release()

This syntax separates the acquisition and release by a (possibly
large) block of code, which makes it difficult to confirm "at a
glance" that the code manages the resource correctly.  Another
common error is to code the "acquire" call within the try block,
which incorrectly releases the lock if the acquire fails.


Basic Syntax and Semantics
==========================

The syntax of a 'with' statement is as follows::

    'with' [ var '=' ] expr ':'
        suite

This statement is defined as being equivalent to the following
sequence of statements::

    var = expr

    if hasattr(var, "__enter__"):
        var.__enter__()

    try:
        suite

    finally:
        var.__exit__()

(The presence of an ``__exit__`` method is *not* checked like that of
``__enter__`` to ensure that using inappropriate objects in with:
statements gives an error).

If the variable is omitted, an unnamed object is allocated on the
stack.  In that case, the suite has no access to the unnamed object.


Possible Extensions
===================

A number of potential extensions to the basic syntax have been
discussed on the Python Developers list.  None of these extensions
are included in the solution proposed by this PEP.  In many cases,
the arguments are nearly equally strong in both directions.  In
such cases, the PEP has always chosen simplicity, simply because
where extra power is needed, the existing try block is available.

Multiple expressions
--------------------

One proposal was for allowing multiple expressions within one
'with' statement.  The ``__enter__`` methods would be called left to
right, and the ``__exit__`` methods right to left.  The advantage of
doing so is that where more than one resource is being managed,
nested 'with' statements will result in code drifting towards the
right margin.  The solution to this problem is the same as for any
other deep nesting - factor out some of the code into a separate
function.  Furthermore, the question of what happens if one of the
``__exit__`` methods raises an exception (should the other ``__exit__``
methods be called?) needs to be addressed.

Exception handling
------------------

An extension to the protocol to include an optional ``__except__``
handler, which is called when an exception is raised, and which
can handle or re-raise the exception, has been suggested.  It is
not at all clear that the semantics of this extension can be made
precise and understandable.  For example, should the equivalent
code be ``try ... except ... else`` if an exception handler is
defined, and ``try ... finally`` if not?  How can this be determined
at compile time, in general?  The alternative is to define the
code as expanding to a ``try ... except`` inside a ``try ... finally``.
But this may not do the right thing in real life.

The only use case identified for exception handling is with
transactional processing (commit on a clean finish, and rollback
on an exception).  This is probably just as easy to handle with a
conventional ``try ... except ... else`` block, and so the PEP does
not include any support for exception handlers.


Implementation Notes
====================

There is a potential race condition in the code specified as
equivalent to the with statement.  For example, if a
``KeyboardInterrupt`` exception is raised between the completion of
the ``__enter__`` method call and the start of the try block, the
``__exit__`` method will not be called.  This can lead to resource
leaks, or to deadlocks.  [XXX Guido has stated that he cares about
this sort of race condition, and intends to write some C magic to
handle them.  The implementation of the 'with' statement should
copy this.]


Open Issues
===========

Should existing classes (for example, file-like objects and locks)
gain appropriate ``__enter__`` and ``__exit__`` methods?  The obvious
reason in favour is convenience (no adapter needed).  The argument
against is that if built-in files have this but (say) ``StringIO``
does not, then code that uses "with" on a file object can't be
reused with a ``StringIO`` object.  So ``__exit__ = close`` becomes a part
of the "file-like object" protocol, which user-defined classes may
need to support.

The ``__enter__`` hook may be unnecessary - for many use cases, an
adapter class is needed and in that case, the work done by the
``__enter__`` hook can just as easily be done in the ``__init__`` hook.

If a way of controlling object lifetimes explicitly was available,
the function of the ``__exit__`` hook could be taken over by the
existing ``__del__`` hook.  An email exchange [1]_ with a proponent of
this approach left one of the authors even more convinced that
it isn't the right idea...

It has been suggested [2]_ that the "__exit__" method be called
"close", or that a "close" method should be considered if no
``__exit__`` method is found, to increase the "out-of-the-box utility"
of the "with ..." construct.

There are some similarities in concept between 'with ...' blocks
and generators, which have led to proposals that for loops could
implement the with block functionality [3]_.  While neat on some
levels, we think that for loops should stick to being loops.


Alternative Ideas
=================

IEXEC: Holger Krekel -- generalised approach with XML-like syntax
(no URL found...).

Holger has much more far-reaching ideas about "execution monitors"
that are informed about details of control flow in the monitored
block.  While interesting, these ideas could change the language
in deep and subtle ways and as such belong to a different PEP.

Any Smalltalk/Ruby anonymous block style extension obviously
subsumes this one.

:pep:`319` is in the same area, but did not win support when aired on
python-dev.


Backwards Compatibility
=======================

This PEP proposes a new keyword, so the ``__future__`` game will need
to be played.


Cost of Adoption
================

Those who claim the language is getting larger and more
complicated have something else to complain about.  It's something
else to teach.

For the proposal to be useful, many file-like and lock-like
classes in the standard library and other code will have to have ::

   __exit__ = close

or similar added.


Cost of Non-Adoption
====================

Writing correct code continues to be more effort than writing
incorrect code.


References
==========

There are various python-list and python-dev discussions that
could be mentioned here.

.. [1] Off-list conversation between Michael Hudson and Bill Soudan
       (made public with permission)
       http://starship.python.net/crew/mwh/pep310/

.. [2] Samuele Pedroni on python-dev
       https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-August/037795.html

.. [3] Thread on python-dev with subject
       ``[Python-Dev] pre-PEP: Resource-Release Support for Generators``
       starting at
       https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-August/037803.html

Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.
