Closed svisser closed 9 years ago
The with statement is supported as of Python 2.6+ so this seems a safer way of expressing the same thing.
Coverage remained the same when pulling cc95f9b85119a05d5576d60dac2a923d8958d3fa on svisser:patch-1 into 903c8da2ffa3b6761c5eeb48d006014502b145a2 on buttscicles:master.
That was fast, thanks!
The with statement is supported as of Python 2.6+ so this seems a safer way of expressing the same thing.