what are python closures good for? [closed] - python

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I understand the technical definition of python closures: let's make it concrete.
def foo(x):
def bar(y):
print(x+y)
return bar
In this example x will get bound with bar. But what are these things actually good for? ie in the toy example above one could have just as easily written
def bar(x,y):
print(x+y)
I would like to know the best use cases for using closures instead of, for example, adding extra arguments to a function.

I think the most used example of closure is for caching functions with a decorator.
def cache_decorator(f):
cache = {}
def wrapper(*args):
if args not in cache:
cache[args] = f(*args)
return cache[args]
return wrapper
#cache_decorator
def some_function(*args):
...
This way the cache cannot be referenced from anywhere, since you do not want your users to tamper with it.

Related

Return a value or assigning a value to a variable and then return - best practice? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Suppose I have two functions
def sum(a, b):
result = a + b
return result
and
def sum(a, b):
return a + b
From the point of view of good programming practices and software engineering, which solution is better? Return a value or assigning a value to a variable and then return? Why?
2nd option is good because it saves space of a variable but at times, we use more variables on purpose for the sake of clarity. We always have to maintain a good balance between clarity and space.

What is the difference between void function and frutial function? [closed]

Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Now I am watching PY4E youtube, the difference between void and fruitial function does not touch me well. just return value?
Also, if the void function has a function PRINT(SOMETHING)
even though it has not return value, but it has some value or result?
isn't it? I am little bit confused.
In Python, all functions return something, but some return None, which is ignored. These are called "void". Functions that return anything else are called "fruitful".
For example, list.append():
>>> a = []
>>> a.append(1)
Note how nothing was printed after a.append(). But it did actually return None, which we can confirm by printing its return value:
>>> print(a.append(2))
None
print as well returns none:
>>> print(print(a.append(3)))
None
None
And user-defined functions which don't have a return statement return None.

Hand over global variables to methods in python? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
This is more a question about good programming style. I usually work with Java, and now I do some working with Python. In Python, there is no need to hand over global variables if you only want to read from them. On the other hand, I think the Java syntax is more helpful in his regard. You have to hand over required variables, and so you can see what variables are used by what method, which I am sure is helpful for somebody who is reading your code.
Now do you hand over variables in Python although you could already access them because they're global? What is the good 'pythonic' way?
Thanks,
ZerO
def foo(a):
a = 2
foo(1)
1 is 'handed over' to method foo().
Yes, this
def foo(a):
a = 2
foo(1)
is preferred over this
a = 1
def foo():
a = 2
foo()
Imagine you have 3 methods that all do something to a list.
a_list_name = []
def a()
a_list_name.something
def b()
a_list_name.something
def c()
a_list_name.something
a()
b()
c()
If you define the list 'global' you will have to refer that exact list in each method. If you for some reason want to change the list name you now have to edit all 3 methods.
However if you pass in the list through a parameter you only have to edit the method calls and the method code can remain untouched. Like this
def a(l)
l.something
def b(l)
l.something
def c(l)
l.something
my_list = []
a(my_list)
b(my_list)
c(my_list)
This makes your code more modular, and most of all it makes your code (methods) testable because they don't depend on some variable that is defined somewhere else

Why are decorators useful? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
So I read this page about decorators, but I still don't understand when decorators are useful.
Consider a piece of code defining a function f, and then calling it multiple times. For some reason we want f to do some extra work. So we have 2 ways to do it:
define a new function g which calls f, and does the extra work needed. Then in the main code, replace all calls to f by calls to g
define a decorator g, and edit the code to add #g before calls to f
In the end, they both achieve the same result and the advantage of 2) over 1) is not obvious to me. What am i missing?
Suppose you have a lot of functions f1, f2, f3, ... and you want a regular way to make the same change to all of them to do the same extra work.
That's what you're missing and it's why decorators are useful. That is to say, functions that take a function and return a modified version of it.
The decorator # syntax is "just" for convenience. It lets you decorate the function as it is defined:
#decorated
def foo():
# several lines
instead of somewhere after the function definition:
def foo():
# several lines
foo = decorated(foo)
In fact of course the latter code is pretty horrible, since it means that by looking at the first definition of foo in the source, you don't see the same foo that users will call. So without the syntax, decorators wouldn't be so valuable because you'd pretty much always end up using different names for the decorated and undecorated functions.

Modify docstring in a decorator [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am using flask, and some functions have decorators, to check the presence of some headers and return some error codes if they are missing.
In these decorators, before returning the decorated function i do something like
decorated_function.__doc__ += "Returns 400 if the X-Version header is not present."
Is this pythonic? Is there a better way to achieve it?
I am using wraps already from functools.
def ModDoc(doc):
def wrapped(func):
func.__doc__ = doc
return func
return wrapped
#ModDoc("test2")
def test():
"""test"""
return
print test.__doc__
Will modify the docstring of anything it is applied too. Remember these changes are purely interactive, and will not show up in stored or auto generated documentation.

Categories

Resources