Develop Reference

Is there something like a reverse eval() function?

Imagine the following problem: you have a dictionary of some content in python and want to generate python code that would create this dict. (which is like eval but in reverse)
Is there something that can do this?
Scenario:
I am working with a remote python interpreter. I can give source files to it but no input. So I am now looking for a way to encode my input data into a python source file.
Example:
d = {'a': [1,4,7]}
str_d = reverse_eval(d)
# "{'a': [1, 4, 7]}"
eval(str_d) == d

repr(thing)
will output text that when executed will (in most cases) reproduce the dictionary.

Actually, it's important for which types of data do you want this reverse function to exist. If you're talking about built-in/standard classes, usually their .__repr__() method returns the code you want to access. But if your goal is to save something in a human-readable format, but to use an eval-like function to use this data in python, there is a json library.
It's better to use json for this reason because using eval is not safe.
Json's problem is that it can't save any type of data, it can save only standard objects, but if we're talking about not built-in types of data, you never know, what is at their .__repr__(), so there's no way to use repr-eval with this kind of data
So, there is no reverse function for all types of data, you can use repr-eval for built-in, but for built-in data the json library is better at least because it's safe

How to save a list of numpy arrays of different sizes to disk?

I have numpy arrays of different lengths, for example
a = [1,2,3,4]
b = [5,6]
c = [7,7,7]
d = [12,24,43,54,66,77,88]
They are packed together in a list (or a dictionary)
the_list = [a,b,c,d]
Each array is about 500 elements long, and the list is about 1000-10000 arrays long.
I want to save this list to a single file on disk with the following requirements in order of importance:
Runtime On Read
Human readable file format
Runtime on Write
Using pandas like so:
df = pd.DataFrame(the_list)
df.to_csv(path, header=None, index=False)
Only writes the first element of every array.
I'm guessing there is a better (working) way, either with pandas, pickle, or something else

I'd probably go with numpy.savez. This isn't a human readible format so maybe it won't work for you, but it is really easy to use (you read the file using numpy.load).
If having it legible for humans is really important, I'd go with json -- It's a language agnostic interchange format that is well known and widely used (probably due to it's popularity in web development). You can write your own encoder/decoder using the builtin facilities in the json module (it's really quite easy), or you can let something like json-tricks do that work for you.

This works in my pc:
the_list = [a,b,c,d]
df_list = pd.DataFrame({ i:pd.Series(value) for i, value in enumerate(the_list) })
df_list.to_csv('./df_list.csv')
the csv file

Elegant way to store dictionary permanently with Python?

Currently expensively parsing a file, which generates a dictionary of ~400 key, value pairs, which is seldomly updated. Previously had a function which parsed the file, wrote it to a text file in dictionary syntax (ie. dict = {'Adam': 'Room 430', 'Bob': 'Room 404'}) etc, and copied and pasted it into another function whose sole purpose was to return that parsed dictionary.
Hence, in every file where I would use that dictionary, I would import that function, and assign it to a variable, which is now that dictionary. Wondering if there's a more elegant way to do this, which does not involve explicitly copying and pasting code around? Using a database kind of seems unnecessary, and the text file gave me the benefit of seeing whether the parsing was done correctly before adding it to the function. But I'm open to suggestions.

Why not dump it to a JSON file, and then load it from there where you need it?
import json
with open('my_dict.json', 'w') as f:
json.dump(my_dict, f)
# elsewhere...
with open('my_dict.json') as f:
my_dict = json.load(f)
Loading from JSON is fairly efficient.
Another option would be to use pickle, but unlike JSON, the files it generates aren't human-readable so you lose out on the visual verification you liked from your old method.

Why mess with all these serialization methods? It's already written to a file as a Python dict (although with the unfortunate name 'dict'). Change your program to write out the data with a better variable name - maybe 'data', or 'catalog', and save the file as a Python file, say data.py. Then you can just import the data directly at runtime without any clumsy copy/pasting or JSON/shelve/etc. parsing:
from data import catalog

JSON is probably the right way to go in many cases; but there might be an alternative. It looks like your keys and your values are always strings, is that right? You might consider using dbm/anydbm. These are "databases" but they act almost exactly like dictionaries. They're great for cheap data persistence.
>>> import anydbm
>>> dict_of_strings = anydbm.open('data', 'c')
>>> dict_of_strings['foo'] = 'bar'
>>> dict_of_strings.close()
>>> dict_of_strings = anydbm.open('data')
>>> dict_of_strings['foo']
'bar'

If the keys are all strings, you can use the shelve module
A shelf is a persistent, dictionary-like object. The difference with
“dbm” databases is that the values (not the keys!) in a shelf can be
essentially arbitrary Python objects — anything that the pickle module
can handle. This includes most class instances, recursive data types,
and objects containing lots of shared sub-objects. The keys are
ordinary strings.
json would be a good choice if you need to use the data from other languages

If storage efficiency matters, use Pickle or CPickle(for execution performance gain). As Amber pointed out, you can also dump/load via Json. It will be human-readable, but takes more disk.

I suggest you consider using the shelve module since your data-structure is a mapping.
That was my answer to a similar question titled If I want to build a custom database, how could I? There's also a bit of sample code in another answer of mine promoting its use for the question How to get a object database?
ActiveState has a highly rated PersistentDict recipe which supports csv, json, and pickle output file formats. It's pretty fast since all three of those formats are implement in C (although the recipe itself is pure Python), so the fact that it reads the whole file into memory when it's opened might be acceptable.

JSON (or YAML, or whatever) serialisation is probably better, but if you're already writing the dictionary to a text file in python syntax, complete with a variable name binding, you could just write that to a .py file instead. Then that python file would be importable and usable as is. There's no need for the "function which returns a dictionary" approach, since you can directly use it as a global in that file. e.g.
# generated.py
please_dont_use_dict_as_a_variable_name = {'Adam': 'Room 430', 'Bob': 'Room 404'}
rather than:
# manually_copied.py
def get_dict():
return {'Adam': 'Room 430', 'Bob': 'Room 404'}
The only difference is that manually_copied.get_dict gives you a fresh copy of the dictionary every time, whereas generated.please_dont_use_dict_as_a_variable_name[1] is a single shared object. This may matter if you're modifying the dictionary in your program after retrieving it, but you can always use copy.copy or copy.deepcopy to create a new copy if you need to modify one independently of the others.
[1] dict, list, str, int, map, etc are generally viewed as bad variable names. The reason is that these are already defined as built-ins, and are used very commonly. So if you give something a name like that, at the least it's going to cause cognitive-dissonance for people reading your code (including you after you've been away for a while) as they have to keep in mind that "dict doesn't mean what it normally does here". It's also quite likely that at some point you'll get an infuriating-to-solve bug reporting that dict objects aren't callable (or something), because some piece of code is trying to use the type dict, but is getting the dictionary object you bound to the name dict instead.

on the JSON direction there is also something called simpleJSON. My first time using json in python the json library didnt work for me/ i couldnt figure it out. simpleJSON was...easier to use

How to save double to file in python?

Let's say I need to save a matrix(each line corresponds one row) that could be loaded from fortran later. What method should I prefer? Is converting everything to string is the only one approach?

You can save them in binary format as well. Please see the documentation on the struct standard module, it has a pack function for converting Python object into binary data.
For example:
import struct
value = 3.141592654
data = struct.pack('d', value)
open('file.ext', 'wb').write(data)
You can convert each element of your matrix and write to a file. Fortran should be able to load that binary data. You can speed up the process by converting a row as a whole, like this:
row_data = struct.pack('d' * len(matrix_row), *matrix_row)
Please note, that 'd' * len(matrix_row) is a constant for your matrix size, so you need to calculate that format string only once.

I don't know fortran, so it's hard to tell what is easy for you to perform on that side for parsing.
It sounds like your options are either saving the doubles in plaintext (meaning, 'converting' them to string), or in binary (using struct and the likes). The decision for which one is better depends.
I would go with the plaintext solution, as it means the files will be easily readable, and you won't have to mess with different kinds of details (endianity, default double sizes).
But, there are cases where binary is better (for example, if you have a really big list of doubles and space is of importance, or if it is easier for you to parse it and you need the optimization) - but this is likely not your case.

You can use JSON
import json
matrix = [[2.3452452435, 3.34134], [4.5, 7.9]]
data = json.dumps(matrix)
open('file.ext', 'wb').write(data)
File content will look like:
[[2.3452452435, 3.3413400000000002], [4.5, 7.9000000000000004]]

If legibility and ease of access is important (and file size is reasonable), Fortran can easily parse a simple array of numbers, at least if it knows the size of the matrix beforehand (with something like READ(FILE_ID, '2(F)'), I think):
1.234 5.6789e4
3.1415 9.265358978
42 ...
Two nested for loops in your Python code can easily write your matrix in this form.

Python: Incrementally marshal / pickle an object?

I have a large object I'd like to serialize to disk. I'm finding marshal works quite well and is nice and fast.
Right now I'm creating my large object then calling marshal.dump . I'd like to avoid holding the large object in memory if possible - I'd like to dump it incrementally as I build it. Is that possible?
The object is fairly simple, a dictionary of arrays.

The bsddb module's 'hashopen' and 'btopen' functions provide a persistent dictionary-like interface. Perhaps you could use one of these, instead of a regular dictionary, to incrementally serialize the arrays to disk?
import bsddb
import marshal
db = bsddb.hashopen('file.db')
db['array1'] = marshal.dumps(array1)
db['array2'] = marshal.dumps(array2)
...
db.close()
To retrieve the arrays:
db = bsddb.hashopen('file.db')
array1 = marshal.loads(db['array1'])
...

It all your object has to do is be a dictionary of lists, then you may be able to use the shelve module. It presents a dictionary-like interface where the keys and values are stored in a database file instead of in memory. One limitation which may or may not affect you is that keys in Shelf objects must be strings. Value storage will be more efficient if you specify protocol=-1 when creating the Shelf object to have it use a more efficient binary representation.

This very much depends on how you are building the object. Is it an array of sub objects? You could marshal/pickle each array element as you build it. Is it a dictionary? Same idea applies (marshal/pickle keys)
If it is just a big complex harry object, you might want to marshal dump each piece of the object, and then the apply what ever your 'building' process is when you read it back in.

You should be able to dump the item piece by piece to the file. The two design questions that need settling are:
How are you building the object when you're putting it in memory?
How do you need you're data when it comes out of memory?
If your build process populates the entire array associated with a given key at a time, you might just dump the key:array pair in a file as a separate dictionary:
big_hairy_dictionary['sample_key'] = pre_existing_array
marshal.dump({'sample_key':big_hairy_dictionary['sample_key']},'central_file')
Then on update, each call to marshal.load('central_file') will return a dictionary that you can use to update a central dictionary. But this is really only going to be helpful if, when you need the data back, you want to handle reading 'central_file' once per key.
Alternately, if you are populating arrays element by element in no particular order, maybe try:
big_hairy_dictionary['sample_key'].append(single_element)
marshal.dump(single_element,'marshaled_files/'+'sample_key')
Then, when you load it back, you don't necessarily need to build the entire dictionary to get back what you need; you just call marshal.load('marshaled_files/sample_key') until it returns None, and you have everything associated with the key.