ENH: expose option_context as a top-level API GH5618

[ghost]

Moving `option_context` to toplevel rather then making `set_option` a context manager means a one line change instead of metaclasses and config_prefix subtlety and the rest of the ich. When a given approach to something explodes in complexity I'll [bravely, bravely run away](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8) every single time.

closes #5618
replaces #5625.

@jtratner, your points about config_prefix being broken are valid, feel free to pick up in the future
if you're so inclined.

cc @jseabold

[jtratner]

Why introduce a new name into the name space when you can just add __enter__ and __exit__ methods to set_option? I hit the meta class because I was doing too many things at once...

[ghost]

I didn't understand all the crud you had to work around until I tried it myself.
it makes the config_prefix stuff break and it makes the code feel like doing a summersault
while reciting shakespeare backwards while doing taxes. It just makes me want to stand back.

The devs have been fine with this distinction for a long while, why's it not good enough for users?

[ghost]

My bad, I misinterpreted the failing tests. Hopefully all green now with set_option as context manager.
Corrected authorship as well.

[jtratner]

Okay, sure. Just seems like you could do
s/set_option/_prefixed_set_option/g and then rename option_context to
set_option (and if you use it not as a contextmanager it's exactly the
same as set_option)
On Dec 19, 2013 6:05 PM, "y-p" notifications@github.com wrote:

I didn't understand all the crud you had to work around Until I tried it
myself.
it makes the config_prefix stuff breaks and the summersault while reciting
shakespeare
backwards and doing taxes feel of the other out just makes me want to
stand back.

The devs have been fine with this distinction for a long while, why's it
not good enough for users?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/5752#issuecomment-30975432
.

[ghost]

Hmm, thought I did, I basically copy-pasted your code.
The docstrings for != set_option didn't work btw, the @Property thing doesn't work
as expected for functions. I had to put in a fix.

The option_context thing is just cleaner all around, but I think it's all there now.

[jtratner]

Go with whatever you like best. option_context is a much better name for it.

[ghost]

Opted for exposing option_context as top-level API. It's just a simpler solution.