63

What is a clean way to create a multi-line with in python? I want to open up several files inside a single with, but it's far enough to the right that I want it on multiple lines. Like this:

class Dummy:
    def __enter__(self): pass
    def __exit__(self, type, value, traceback): pass

with Dummy() as a, Dummy() as b,
     Dummy() as c:
    pass

Unfortunately, that is a SyntaxError. So I tried this:

with (Dummy() as a, Dummy() as b,
      Dummy() as c):
    pass

Also a syntax error. However, this worked:

with Dummy() as a, Dummy() as b,\
     Dummy() as c:
    pass

But what if I wanted to place a comment? This does not work:

with Dummy() as a, Dummy() as b,\
     # my comment explaining why I wanted Dummy() as c\
     Dummy() as c:
    pass

Nor does any obvious variation on the placement of the \s.

Is there a clean way to create a multi-line with statement that allows comments inside it?

Justin
  • 24,288
  • 12
  • 92
  • 142
  • Actually, the big question is what PEP-8 says about this stuff, since PEP-8 restricts line-length to 80 chars, which is what makes doing this necessary. – Justin Jun 25 '15 at 00:02
  • 1
    @TigerhawkT3 I think that the 80 char limit is low too, but I see a benefit to it when I'm working on a project that requires me to have 5 files open simultaneously. It's much easier to be able to see every file. I might make an exception for this file, though. – Justin Jun 25 '15 at 00:15
  • 8
    PEP-8 is [explicitly ok](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#maximum-line-length) with ` \ ` line continuation for multiline `with` statements, since you can't use implicit continuation. That doesn't really help your situation if you want to inline comments, though. – Eric Appelt Jun 25 '15 at 00:29

6 Answers6

69

As of Python 3.10, it is now possible to parenthesize the whole group of context managers, as you originally tried:

with (Dummy() as a, Dummy() as b,
      # comment about c
      Dummy() as c):
    pass

This is also technically possible in 3.9, but in a sort of semi-documented limbo.

On one hand, it's documented as new in 3.10, 3.9 wasn't supposed to introduce any features (like this one) that depend on the new parser implementation, and the 3.9 with docs forbid this form. On the other hand, the functionality ended up getting activated in the 3.9 CPython implementation, and the (mostly?) auto-generated 3.9 full grammar spec includes the parenthesized form.


On previous Python 3 versions, if you need to intersperse comments with your context managers, I would use a contextlib.ExitStack:

from contextlib import ExitStack

with ExitStack() as stack:
    a = stack.enter_context(Dummy()) # Relevant comment
    b = stack.enter_context(Dummy()) # Comment about b
    c = stack.enter_context(Dummy()) # Further information

This is equivalent to

with Dummy() as a, Dummy() as b, Dummy() as c:

This has the benefit that you can generate your context managers in a loop instead of needing to separately list each one. The documentation gives the example that if you want to open a bunch of files, and you have the filenames in a list, you can do

with ExitStack() as stack:
    files = [stack.enter_context(open(fname)) for fname in filenames]

If your context managers take so much screen space that you want to put comments between them, you probably have enough to want to use some sort of loop.


As Mr. Deathless mentions in the comments, there's a contextlib backport on PyPI under the name contextlib2. If you're on Python 2, you can use the backport's implementation of ExitStack.


Incidentally, the reason you can't do something like

with (
        ThingA() as a,
        ThingB() as b):
    ...

before the new parser implementation is because a ( can also be the first token of the expression for a context manager, and CPython's old parser wouldn't be able to tell what rule it's supposed to be parsing when it sees the first (. This is one of the motivating examples for PEP 617's new PEG-based parser.

user2357112
  • 260,549
  • 28
  • 431
  • 505
  • 3
    There is a backport of contextlib improvements to Python 2 on [pypi](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/contextlib2/). It provides `ExitStack()` among other things. – Mr. Deathless Nov 25 '15 at 16:20
16

Python 3.9+ only:

with (
    Dummy() as a,
    Dummy() as b,
    # my comment explaining why I wanted Dummy() as c
    Dummy() as c,
):
    pass

Python ≤ 3.8:

with \
    Dummy() as a, \
    Dummy() as b, \
    Dummy() as c:
    pass

Unfortunately, comments are not possible with this syntax.

Neil G
  • 32,138
  • 39
  • 156
  • 257
  • @Justin It works in 3.90a6, which you can install using pyenv :) – Neil G Jun 20 '20 at 19:05
  • @justin 3.9 got released – Thomas Grainger Nov 09 '20 at 09:12
  • @ThomasGrainger Thanks for the ping. I tried this out and it does indeed work with Python 3.9 – Justin Nov 10 '20 at 05:09
  • This is **not** officially supported yet. It's very likely to become an official feature in 3.10, but it's currently an undocumented deviation from the official grammar. It may not work in other Python 3.9 implementations, when PyPy or some other project gets around to 3.9 support. – user2357112 Nov 10 '20 at 05:20
  • @user2357112supportsMonica isn't the official grammar the one in cpython? If not, where is the official grammar? – Neil G Nov 10 '20 at 08:01
  • 1
    The [official docs](https://docs.python.org/3/reference/compound_stmts.html#the-with-statement) for the `with` statement disallow parentheses. It looks like when they generated the [full grammar spec](https://docs.python.org/3/reference/grammar.html) in the docs, they generated it from a grammar file that has the with-parentheses rule and left that rule in, though, so I guess this change is now in a semi-documented limbo. – user2357112 Nov 10 '20 at 08:18
  • 1
    @user2357112supportsMonica Fair enough, this should be PR in cpython though. Guido's pretty proud of the new PEG grammar. He was quick to show me that the parenthesized *with* statement now works. – Neil G Nov 10 '20 at 08:21
  • @NeilG: They *couldn't* actually add support officially, because 3.9 officially supported being compiled with either the old LL(1) parser or the new PEG parser. 3.10 was the first release to drop LL(1) parser support, so it was the first release that could officially use syntactic features that required the PEG parser. The PEG parser is the default for 3.9, but weird/custom builds of Python 3.9 might not use it. – ShadowRanger Dec 07 '22 at 15:53
12

This seems tidiest to me:

with open('firstfile', 'r') as (f1 # first
  ), open('secondfile', 'r') as (f2 # second
  ):
    pass
TigerhawkT3
  • 48,464
  • 6
  • 60
  • 97
3

This isn't exactly clean, but you could do this:

with Dummy() as a, Dummy() as b, (
     #my comment
     Dummy()) as c:
    pass

There are no syntax errors, but it's not the cleanest. You could also do this:

with Dummy() as a, Dummy() as b, Dummy(
     #my comment
     ) as c:
    pass

Consider finding a way of doing this without using the comments in the middle of the with.

Justin
  • 24,288
  • 12
  • 92
  • 142
  • Well done Quincunx. This is fairly crazy syntax, but I think that's what OP wanted. I didn't think this was possible. – DevShark Jun 25 '15 at 00:04
  • 10
    Fun fact: he _is_ the OP. – TigerhawkT3 Jun 25 '15 at 00:04
  • 1
    @DevShark This does what I want, but is there a way to do this that isn't so crazy? That's the question I want to know. Sometimes I wish python was able to say, "There's an operator at the end of this line that requires something to be after it, so I'd better check the next line for the other operand." – Justin Jun 25 '15 at 00:06
  • 2
    No offense intended; my amusement came from @DevShark's lack of realization. But, if you often just need to give it a few more minutes to figure something out yourself, maybe you could so before asking a question? Be more self-confident. :) – TigerhawkT3 Jun 25 '15 at 00:10
  • 1
    @TigerhawkT3 I do so before asking. I always spend at least an hour working on the problem before I ask. It's only when frustration overcomes me that I ask. And yet I somehow usually manage to figure it out after I ask. – Justin Jun 25 '15 at 00:11
  • 3
    @Downvoter Can you please explain what is bad about this answer so I can improve my future answers? – Justin Jun 25 '15 at 15:41
  • 5
    @Justin if you usually figure things out after finally breaking down and asking a question, might I suggest a rubber duck by your side? ;-) Either way, it's seldom a bad thing to post a question online if only to answer it yourself shortly after. It's good for posterity, and for others' benefit! – Victor Zamanian Jun 28 '18 at 12:56
3

I would keep things simple and readable by adding the comment before the with statement, or on the line itself:

# my comment explaining why I wanted Dummy() as c
with Dummy() as a, Dummy() as b,\
     Dummy() as c: # or add the comment here
    pass
MiniQuark
  • 46,633
  • 36
  • 147
  • 183
0

Like TigerhawkT3's answer, but with indenting that doesn't trigger pycodestyle's error E124:

with (
        open('firstfile', 'r')) as f1, (  # first
        open('secondfile', 'r')) as f2:  # second
    pass

IMO it's still ugly, but at least it passes the linter.

wjandrea
  • 28,235
  • 9
  • 60
  • 81