I need to run a .tcl file via command line which get invoked with a Python script. However, a single line in that .tcl file needs to change based on input from the user. For example:
info = input("Prompt for the user: ")
Now I need the string contained in info to replace one of the lines in .tcl file.
Rewriting the script is one of the trickier options to pick. It makes things harder to audit and it is tremendously easy to make a mess of. It's not recommended at all unless you take special steps, such as factoring out the bit you set into its own file:
File that you edit, e.g., settings.tcl (simple enough that it is pretty trivial to write and you can rewrite the whole lot each time without making a mess of it)
set value "123"
Use of that file:
set value 0
if {[file readable settings.tcl]} {
source settings.tcl
}
puts "value is $value"
More sophisticated versions of that are possible with safe interpreters and language profiling… but they're only really needed when the settings and the code are in different trust domains.
That said, there are other approaches that are usually easier. If you are invoking the Tcl script by running a subprocess, the easiest ways to pass an arbitrary parameter are to use one of:
A command line argument. These can be read on the Tcl side from the $argv global, which holds a list of all arguments after the script name. (The lindex and lassign commands tend to be useful here, e.g., set value [lindex $argv 0].)
An environment variable. These can be read on the Tcl side from the env global array, e.g., set value $env(MyVarName)
On standard input. A line can be read from that on the Tcl side using set line [gets stdin].
In more complex cases, you'd pass values in their own files, or by writing them into something like an SQLite database, or… well, there's lots of options.
If on the other hand the Tcl interpreter is in the same process, pass the values by setting the variables in it before asking for the script to run. (Tcl has almost no true globals — environment variables are a special exception, and only because the OS forces it upon us — so everything is specific to the interpreter context.)
Specifically, if you've got a Tcl instance object from tkinter (Tk is a subclass of that) then you can do:
import tkinter
interp = tkinter.Tcl()
interp.call("set", "value", 123)
interp.eval("source program.tcl")
# Or interp.call("source", "program.tcl")
That has the advantage of doing all the quoting for you.
Related
I need to subset very many font files and I need to do that from within the python environment. Yet, Fonttools is very poorly documented and I cannot find a module and the proper function syntax to perform subsetting based on unicode from within python, not as a command line tool (pyftsubset). Some of my files contain various errors when read by the Fonttools and I cannot catch exceptions using !command inside jupyter.
pyftsubset is itself just a Python script, which calls fontTools.subset.main, which in turn parses sys.argv (command-line args) to perform subsetting. You can do the same thing pretty easily in your own script, for example:
import sys
from fontTools.subset import main as ss
sys.argv = [None, '/path/to/font/file.ttf', '--unicodes=U+0020-002F']
ss() # this is what actually does the subsetting and writes the output file
Obviously you'll want to use your own values for --unicodes plus the numerous other pyftsubset options, but in general this scheme should work. Possible caveat is if you have other parts of your program that use/rely on sys.argv; if that's the case you might want to capture the initial values in another variable before modifying sys.argv and calling the subsetter, then re-set it to the initial values after.
I think that should be a pythonic way to do it properly:
from fontTools import subset
subsetter = subset.Subsetter()
subsetter.populate(unicodes=["U+0020", "U+0021"])
subsetter.subset(font)
While font is your TTFont and you might need to check the documentation for how to exactly pass in the the list of unicodes. I didn’t test this exact code, but I tested it with subsetter.populate(glyphs=["a", "b"]) which does a similar job, but with glyphNames instead. The populate method can take these arguments as documented: populate(self, glyphs=[], gids=[], unicodes=[], text='')
I found a clue to that in this discussion.
How can I align my python arguments quickly in Vim. New to tabular plugin and cannot figure out command for aligning arguments properly:
Have this:
myfunc(arg1=value1,
arg2=value2,
arg3=value3,
arg4=value4,
arg5=value5,
arg6=value6,
arg7=value7)
Want this:
myfunc(arg1=value1,
arg2=value2,
arg3=value3,
arg4=value4,
arg5=value5,
arg6=value6,
arg7=value7)
You don't actually need Tabular.vim for this. Put your cursor at the top of myfunc (or a bit higher) and press =} (or =)). This runs equalprg across your function block to indent it appropriately.
From the help on 'equalprg':
External program to use for "=" command. When this option is empty
the internal formatting functions are used; either 'lisp', 'cindent'
or 'indentexpr'. When Vim was compiled without internal formatting,
the "indent" program is used.
Environment variables are expanded |:set_env|. See |option-backslash|
about including spaces and backslashes.
This option cannot be set from a |modeline| or in the |sandbox|, for
security reasons.
BTW, if you do want to learn more about Tabular and its use cases, there’s a great video on vimcasts.
My python scripts often contain "executable code" (functions, classes, &c) in the first part of the file and "test code" (interactive experiments) at the end.
I want python, py_compile, pylint &c to completely ignore the experimental stuff at the end.
I am looking for something like #if 0 for cpp.
How can this be done?
Here are some ideas and the reasons they are bad:
sys.exit(0): works for python but not py_compile and pylint
put all experimental code under def test():: I can no longer copy/paste the code into a python REPL because it has non-trivial indent
put all experimental code between lines with """: emacs no longer indents and fontifies the code properly
comment and uncomment the code all the time: I am too lazy (yes, this is a single key press, but I have to remember to do that!)
put the test code into a separate file: I want to keep the related stuff together
PS. My IDE is Emacs and my python interpreter is pyspark.
Use ipython rather than python for your REPL It has better code completion and introspection and when you paste indented code it can automatically "de-indent" the pasted code.
Thus you can put your experimental code in a test function and then paste in parts without worrying and having to de-indent your code.
If you are pasting large blocks that can be considered individual blocks then you will need to use the %paste or %cpaste magics.
eg.
for i in range(3):
i *= 2
# with the following the blank line this is a complete block
print(i)
With a normal paste:
In [1]: for i in range(3):
...: i *= 2
...:
In [2]: print(i)
4
Using %paste
In [3]: %paste
for i in range(10):
i *= 2
print(i)
## -- End pasted text --
0
2
4
In [4]:
PySpark and IPython
It is also possible to launch PySpark in IPython, the enhanced Python interpreter. PySpark works with IPython 1.0.0 and later. To use IPython, set the IPYTHON variable to 1 when running bin/pyspark:1
$ IPYTHON=1 ./bin/pyspark
Unfortunately, there is no widely (or any) standard describing what you are talking about, so getting a bunch of python specific things to work like this will be difficult.
However, you could wrap these commands in such a way that they only read until a signifier. For example (assuming you are on a unix system):
cat $file | sed '/exit(0)/q' |sed '/exit(0)/d'
The command will read until 'exit(0)' is found. You could pipe this into your checkers, or create a temp file that your checkers read. You could create wrapper executable files on your path that may work with your editors.
Windows may be able to use a similar technique.
I might advise a different approach. Separate files might be best. You might explore iPython notebooks as a possible solution, but I'm not sure exactly what your use case is.
Follow something like option 2.
I usually put experimental code in a main method.
def main ():
*experimental code goes here *
Then if you want to execute the experimental code just call the main.
main()
With python-mode.el mark arbitrary chunks as section - for example via py-sectionize-region.
Than call py-execute-section.
Updated after comment:
python-mode.el is delivered by melpa.
M-x list-packages RET
Look for python-mode - the built-in python.el provides 'python, while python-mode.el provides 'python-mode.
Developement just moved hereto: https://gitlab.com/python-mode-devs/python-mode
I think the standard ('Pythonic') way to deal with this is to do it like so:
class MyClass(object):
...
def my_function():
...
if __name__ == '__main__':
# testing code here
Edit after your comment
I don't think what you want is possible using a plain Python interpreter. You could have a look at the IEP Python editor (website, bitbucket): it supports something like Matlab's cell mode, where a cell can be defined with a double comment character (##):
## main code
class MyClass(object):
...
def my_function():
...
## testing code
do_some_testing_please()
All code from a ##-beginning line until either the next such line or end-of-file constitutes a single cell.
Whenever the cursor is within a particular cell and you strike some hotkey (default Ctrl+Enter), the code within that cell is executed in the currently running interpreter. An additional feature of IEP is that selected code can be executed with F9; a pretty standard feature but the nice thing here is that IEP will smartly deal with whitespace, so just selecting and pasting stuff from inside a method will automatically work.
I suggest you use a proper version control system to keep the "real" and the "experimental" parts separated.
For example, using Git, you could only include the real code without the experimental parts in your commits (using add -p), and then temporarily stash the experimental parts for running your various tools.
You could also keep the experimental parts in their own branch which you then rebase on top of the non-experimental parts when you need them.
Another possibility is to put tests as doctests into the docstrings of your code, which admittedly is only practical for simpler cases.
This way, they are only treated as executable code by the doctest module, but as comments otherwise.
I would like to script some behaviour in GDB using Python: given a regular expression describing a set of functions, instantiate a subclass of gdb.Breakpoint (eg. MyBreakpoint) for each function matched.
There is no equivalent of rbreak in GDB's Python module. I had thought of doing this:
gdb.execute('rbreak {:s}'.format(regexp))
breakpoints = gdb.breakpoints()
# Extract breakpoint strings, delete existing breakpoints, and
# recreate them using my subclass.
for bp in breakpoints:
loc = bp.location
bp.delete()
MyBreakpoint(loc)
...however this suffers from the problem that there might already be some user defined breakpoints, and this would destroy them.
My next idea was to iterate over all possible functions to break on, and do the matching using Python's re module. However, there doesn't seem to be any way to list functions available for breaking from within Python.
My question is: could either of these approaches be salvaged so that they will work reliably and not clobber state set by a user in an interactive session; or is there some other way to achieve this? Or will I have to compromise on "not clobbering user state?"
Since rbreak creates new breakpoint objects, even if the breakpoints are for the same locations as pre-existing breakpoints, you can run gdb.breakpoints() before and after the execution of rbreak to see which breakpoints were added.
obreakpoints = gdb.breakpoints();
gdb.execute('rbreak {:s}'.format(regexp))
breakpoints = set(gdb.breakpoints()).difference(set(obreakpoints))
In my python file, I have made a GUI widget that takes some inputs from user. I have imported a python module in my python file that takes some input using raw_input(). I have to use this module as it is, I have no right to change it. When I run my python file, it ask me for the inputs (due to raw_input() of imported module). I want to use GUI widget inputs in that place.
How can I pass the user input (that we take from widget) as raw_input() of imported module?
First, if importing it directly into your script isn't actually a requirement (and it's hard to imagine why it would be), you can just run the module (or a simple script wrapped around it) as a separate process, using subprocess or pexpect.
Let's make this concrete. Say you want to use this silly module foo.py:
def bar():
x = raw_input("Gimme a string")
y = raw_input("Gimme another")
return 'Got two strings: {}, {}'.format(x, y)
First write a trivial foo.wrapper.py:
import foo
print(foo.bar())
Now, instead of calling foo.do_thing() directly in your real script, run foo_wrapper as a child process.
I'm going to assume that you already have the input you want to send it in a string, because that makes the irrelevant parts of the answer simpler (in fact, it makes them possible—if you wanted to use some GUI code for that, there's really no way I could show you how unless you first tell us which GUI library you're using).
So:
foo_input = 'String 1\nString 2\n'
with subprocess.Popen([sys.executable, 'foo_wrapper.py'],
stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE) as p:
foo_output, _ = p.communicate(foo_input)
Of course in real life you'll want to use an appropriate path for foo_wrapper.py instead of assuming that it's in the current working directory, but this should be enough to illustrate the idea.
Meanwhile, if "I have no right to change it" just means "I don't (and shouldn't) have checkin rights to the foo project's github site or the relevant subtree on our company's P4 server" or whatever, there's a really easy answer: Fork it, and change the fork.
Even if it's got a weak copyleft license like LGPL: fork it, change the fork, publish your fork under the same license as the original, then use your fork.
If you're depending on the foo package being installed on every target system, and can't depend on your replacement foo being installed instead, that's a bit more of a problem. But if the function or method that actually calls raw_input is just a small fraction of the actual code in foo, you can fix that by monkeypatching foo at runtime.
And that leads to the last-ditch possibility: You can always monkeypatch raw_input itself.
Again, I'm going to assume that you already have the input you need to give it to make things simpler.
So, first you write a replacement function:
foo_input = ['String 1\n', 'String 2\n']
def fake_raw_input(prompt):
global foo_input
return foo_input.pop()
Now, there are two ways you can patch this in. Usually, you want to do this:
import foo
foo.raw_input = fake_raw_input
This means any code in foo that calls raw_input will see the function you crammed into its module globals instead of the normal builtin. Unless it does something really funky (like looking up the builtin directly and copying it to a local variable or something), this is the answer.
If you need to handle one of those really funky edge cases, and you don't mind doing something questionable, you can do this:
import __builtin__
__builtin__.raw_input = fake_raw_input
You must do this before the first import foo anywhere in your problem. Also, it's not clear whether this is intentionally guaranteed to work, accidentally guaranteed to work (and should be fixed in the future), or not guaranteed to work. But it does work (at least for CPython 2.5-2.7, which is what you're probably using).