Am I correct in thinking that that Python doesn't have a direct equivalent for Perl's __END__?
print "Perl...\n";
__END__
End of code. I can put anything I want here.
One thought that occurred to me was to use a triple-quoted string. Is there a better way to achieve this in Python?
print "Python..."
"""
End of code. I can put anything I want here.
"""
The __END__ block in perl dates from a time when programmers had to work with data from the outside world and liked to keep examples of it in the program itself.
Hard to imagine I know.
It was useful for example if you had a moving target like a hardware log file with mutating messages due to firmware updates where you wanted to compare old and new versions of the line or keep notes not strictly related to the programs operations ("Code seems slow on day x of month every month") or as mentioned above a reference set of data to run the program against. Telcos are an example of an industry where this was a frequent requirement.
Lastly Python's cult like restrictiveness seems to have a real and tiresome effect on the mindset of its advocates, if your only response to a question is "Why would you want to that when you could do X?" when X is not as useful please keep quiet++.
The triple-quote form you suggested will still create a python string, whereas Perl's parser simply ignores anything after __END__. You can't write:
"""
I can put anything in here...
Anything!
"""
import os
os.system("rm -rf /")
Comments are more suitable in my opinion.
#__END__
#Whatever I write here will be ignored
#Woohoo !
What you're asking for does not exist.
Proof: http://www.mail-archive.com/python-list#python.org/msg156396.html
A simple solution is to escape any " as \" and do a normal multi line string -- see official docs: http://docs.python.org/tutorial/introduction.html#strings
( Also, atexit doesn't work: http://www.mail-archive.com/python-list#python.org/msg156364.html )
Hm, what about sys.exit(0) ? (assuming you do import sys above it, of course)
As to why it would useful, sometimes I sit down to do a substantial rewrite of something and want to mark my "good up to this point" place.
By using sys.exit(0) in a temporary manner, I know nothing below that point will get executed, therefore if there's a problem (e.g., server error) I know it had to be above that point.
I like it slightly better than commenting out the rest of the file, just because there are more chances to make a mistake and uncomment something (stray key press at beginning of line), and also because it seems better to insert 1 line (which will later be removed), than to modify X-many lines which will then have to be un-modified later.
But yeah, this is splitting hairs; commenting works great too... assuming your editor supports easily commenting out a region, of course; if not, sys.exit(0) all the way!
I use __END__ all the time for multiples of the reasons given. I've been doing it for so long now that I put it (usually preceded by an exit('0');), along with BEGIN {} / END{} routines, in by force-of-habit. It is a shame that Python doesn't have an equivalent, but I just comment-out the lines at the bottom: extraneous, but that's about what you get with one way to rule them all languages.
Python does not have a direct equivalent to this.
Why do you want it? It doesn't sound like a really great thing to have when there are more consistent ways like putting the text at the end as comments (that's how we include arbitrary text in Python source files. Triple quoted strings are for making multi-line strings, not for non-code-related text.)
Your editor should be able to make using many lines of comments easy for you.
Related
First of, I'm not sure if SO is the right place for this question, so feel free to move it somewhere more appropriate if necessary.
cmd_folder = os.path.realpath(os.path.abspath(os.path.split(inspect.getfile( inspect.currentframe() ))[0]))
I have this line of code. The Python PEP 8 document recommends limiting lines to 79 characters to preserve readability on smaller screens.
What is the most elegant way to style this line of code to fit the PEP recommendations?
cmd_folder = os.path.realpath(os.path.abspath(os.path.split
(inspect.getfile
( inspect.currentframe() ))[0]))
Is this the most appropriate way for is there a better one that I have not thought of?
I would say in the case of your example code, it would be more appropriate to split them up into individual operation, as opposed to making the code harder to read.
aFile = inspect.getfile(inspect.currentframe())
cmd_folder = os.path.realpath(os.path.abspath(os.path.split(aFile)[0]))
It should not be such a chore to trace the start and close of all those parenthesis to figure out what is happening with each temp variable. Variable names can help with clarity, by naming the intention/type of the results.
If it is two, maybe 3, nested calls I might do the act of newlines in one call, but definitely not when you have a ton of parenthesis, and list indexing squished in between. But normally I am only more inclined to do that with chained calls like foo.bar().biz().baz() since it flows left to right.
Always assume some poor random developer will have to read your code tomorrow.
I am in general with the answer provided by jdi (split into several expressions). But I would like to show another aspect of this issue.
In general, if just trying to properly break and indent this line, you should also follow PEP8 rules on indentation:
Use 4 spaces per indentation level.
For really old code that you don't want to mess up, you can continue to use 8-space tabs.
Continuation lines should align wrapped elements either vertically using Python's implicit line joining inside parentheses, brackets and braces, or using a hanging indent. When using a hanging indent the following considerations should be applied; there should be no arguments on the first line and further indentation should be used to clearly distinguish itself as a continuation line.
[several examples follow]
So in your case it could look like this:
#---------------------------------------------------------79th-column-mark--->|
cmd_folder = os.path.realpath(
os.path.abspath(os.path.split(inspect.getfile(inspect.currentframe()))[0]))
But as I mentioned at the beginning, and as PEP20 (The Zen of Python) mentions:
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
thus you should definitely split your code into few expressions, as jdi notes.
I tend to do it like this:
cmd_folder = os.path.realpath(os.path.abspath(os.path.split(
inspect.getfile(inspect.currentframe()))[0]))
Open-parens at the end of the first line, and indention on continuation lines. Ultimately it boils down to what you think is more aesthetic.
There's also no shame in doing part of the computation and saving the result in a variable, like this:
f = inspect.getfile(inspect.currentframe())
cmd_folder = os.path.realpath(os.path.abspath(os.path.split(f)[0]))
If you really insist on keeping it one expression, I'd go with an "extreme" simply because it actually looks nice:
cmd_folder = os.path.realpath(
os.path.abspath(
os.path.split(
inspect.getfile(
inspect.currentframe()
))[0]
))
Some terminals will send ^? as backspace, some other terminals will send ^H.
Most of the terminals can be configured to change their behavior.
I do not want to deal with all the possible combinations but I would like to accept both ^? and ^H as a backspace from python.
doing this
os.system("stty erase '^?'")
I will accept the first option and with
os.system("stty erase '^H'")
I will accept the second one but the first will be no longer available.
I would like to use
raw_input("userinput>>")
to grab the input.
The only way I was able to figure out is implementing my own shell which works not on "raw based input" but on "char based input".
Any better (and quicker) idea?
The built-in function raw_input() (or input() in Python 3) will automatically use the readline library after importing it. This gives you a nice and full-feautured line editor, and it is probably your best bet on platforms where it is available, as long as you don't mind Readline having a contagious licence (GPL).
I don't know your question exactly. IMO, you need a method to read some line-based text(including some special character) from console to program.
No matter what method you use, if read this character have special mean in different console, you should confront a console(not only system-specific, but also console-specific) question, all text in console will be store in buffer first, and then show in screen, finally processed and send in to your program. Another way to surround this problem is to use a raw line-obtaining console environment.
You can add a special method(a decorator) to decorate the raw_input() or somewhat input method to process special word.
After solved that question
using this snippet can deal with input,:
def pre():
textline=raw_input()
# ^? should replace to the specific value.
textline.replace("^?","^H")
return textline
To be faster, maybe invoke some system function depend on OS is an idea. But in fact, IO in python is faster enough for common jobs.
To fix ^? on erase do stty erase ^H
For rapidly changing business rules, I'm storing IronPython fragments in XML files. So far this has been working out well, but I'm starting to get to the point where I need more that just one-line expressions.
The problem is that XML and significant whilespace don't play well together. Before I abandon it for another language, I would like to know if IronPython has an alternative syntax.
IronPython doesn't have an alternate syntax. It's an implementation of Python, and Python uses significant indentation (all languages use significant whitespace, not sure why we talk about whitespace when it's only indentation that's unusual in the Python case).
>>> from __future__ import braces
File "<stdin>", line 1
from __future__ import braces
^
SyntaxError: not a chance
All I want is something that will let my users write code like
Ummm... Don't do this. You don't actually want this. In the long run, this will cause endless little issues because you're trying to force too much content into an attribute.
Do this.
<Rule Name="Markup">
<Formula>(Account.PricingLevel + 1) * .05</Formula>
</Rule>
You should try not to have significant, meaningful stuff in attributes. As a general XML design policy, you should use tags and save attributes for names and ID's and the like. When you look at well-done XSD's and DTD's, you see that attributes are used minimally.
Having the body of the rule in a separate tag (not an attribute) saves much pain. And it allows a tool to provide correct CDATA sections. Use a tool like Altova's XML Spy to assure that your tags have space preserved properly.
I think you can set the xml:space="preserve" attribute or use a <![CDATA[ to avoid other issues, with for example quotes and greater equal signs.
Apart from the already mentioned CDATA sections, there's pindent.py which can, among others, fix broken indentation based on comments a la #end if - to quote the linked file:
When called as "pindent -r" it assumes its input is a Python program with block-closing comments but with its indentation messed up, and outputs a properly indented version.
...
A "block-closing comment" is a comment of the form '# end <keyword>' where is the keyword that opened the block. If the opening keyword is 'def' or 'class', the function or class name may be repeated in the block-closing comment as well. Here is an example of a program fully augmented with block-closing comments:
def foobar(a, b):
if a == b:
a = a+1
elif a < b:
b = b-1
if b > a: a = a-1
# end if
else:
print 'oops!'
# end if
# end def foobar
It's bundeled with CPython, but if IronPython doesn't have it, just grab it from the repository.
Just wondering...
I find using escape characters too distracting. I'd rather do something like this (console code):
>>> print ^'Let's begin and end with sets of unlikely 2 chars and bingo!'^
Let's begin and end with sets of unlikely 2 chars and bingo!
Note the ' inside the string, and how this syntax would have no issue with it, or whatever else inside for basically all cases. Too bad markdown can't properly colorize it (yet), so I decided to <pre> it.
Sure, the ^ could be any other char, I'm not sure what would look/work better. That sounds good enough to me, tho.
Probably some other language already have a similar solution. And, just maybe, Python already have such a feature and I overlooked it. I hope this is the case.
But if it isn't, would it be too hard to, somehow, change Python's interpreter and be able to select an arbitrary (or even standardized) syntax for notating the strings?
I realize there are many ways to change statements and the whole syntax in general by using pre-compilators, but this is far more specific. And going any of those routes is what I call "too hard". I'm not really needing to do this so, again, I'm just wondering.
Python has this use """ or ''' as the delimiters
print '''Let's begin and end with sets of unlikely 2 chars and bingo'''
How often do you have both of 3' and 3" in a string
OK, I'm aware that triple-quotes strings can serve as multiline comments. For example,
"""Hello, I am a
multiline comment"""
and
'''Hello, I am a
multiline comment'''
But technically speaking these are strings, correct?
I've googled and read the Python style guide, but I was unable to find a technical answer to why there is no formal implementation of multiline, /* */ type of comments. I have no problem using triple quotes, but I am a little curious as to what led to this design decision.
I doubt you'll get a better answer than, "Guido didn't feel the need for multi-line comments".
Guido has tweeted about this:
Python tip: You can use multi-line strings as multi-line comments. Unless used as docstrings, they generate no code! :-)
Multi-line comments are easily breakable. What if you have the following in a simple calculator program?
operation = ''
print("Pick an operation: +-*/")
# Get user input here
Try to comment that with a multi-line comment:
/*
operation = ''
print("Pick an operation: +-*/")
# Get user input here
*/
Oops, your string contains the end comment delimiter.
Triple-quoted text should NOT be considered multi-line comments; by convention, they are docstrings. They should describe what your code does and how to use it, but not for things like commenting out blocks of code.
According to Guido, multiline comments in Python are just contiguous single-line comments (search for "block comments").
To comment blocks of code, I sometimes use the following pattern:
if False:
# A bunch of code
This likely goes back to the core concept that there should be one obvious way to do a task. Additional comment styles add unnecessary complications and could decrease readability.
Well, the triple-quotes are used as multiline comments in docstrings. And # comments are used as inline comments and people get use to it.
Most of script languages don't have multiline comments either. Maybe that's the cause?
See PEP 0008, section Comments
And see if your Python editor offers some keyboard shortcut for block commenting. Emacs supports it, as well as Eclipse, presumably most of decent IDEs does.
From The Zen of Python:
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
To comment out a block of code in the Pycharm IDE:
Code | Comment with Line Comment
Windows or Linux: Ctrl + /
Mac OS: Command + /
Personally my comment style in say Java is like
/*
* My multi-line comment in Java
*/
So having single-line only comments isn't such a bad thing if your style is typical to the preceding example because in comparison you'd have
#
# My multi-line comment in Python
#
VB.NET is also a language with single-line only commenting, and personally I find it annoying as comments end up looking less likes comments and more like some kind of quote
'
' This is a VB.NET example
'
Single-line-only comments end up having less character-usage than multi-line comments, and are less likely to be escaped by some dodgy characters in a regex statement perhaps? I'd tend to agree with Ned though.
# This
# is
# a
# multi-line
# comment
Use comment block or search and replace (s/^/#/g) in your editor to achieve this.
I solved this by downloading a macro for my text editor (TextPad) that lets me highlight lines and it then inserts # at the first of each line. A similar macro removes the #'s. Some may ask why multiline is necessary but it comes in handy when you're trying to "turn off" a block of code for debugging purposes.
For anyone else looking for multi-line comments in Python - using the triple quote format can have some problematic consequences, as I've just learned the hard way. Consider this:
this_dict = {
'name': 'Bob',
"""
This is a multiline comment in the middle of a dictionary
"""
'species': 'Cat'
}
The multi-line comment will be tucked into the next string, messing up the
'species' key. Better to just use # for comments.
There should only be one way to do a thing, is contradicted by the usage of multiline strings and single line strings or switch/case and if, different form of loops.
Multiline comments are a pretty common feature and lets face it the multiline string comment is a hack with negative sideffects!
I have seen lots of code doing the multiline comment trick and even editors use it.
But I guess every language has its quirks where the devs insist on never fixing it. I know such quirks from the java side as well, which have been open since the late 90s, never to be fixed!
Because the # convention is a common one, and there really isn't anything you can do with a multiline comment that you can't with a #-sign comment. It's a historical accident, like the ancestry of /* ... */ comments going back to PL/I,
Assume that they were just considered unnecessary. Since it's so easy to just type #a comment, multiline comments can just consist of many single line comments.
For HTML, on the other hand, there's more of a need for multiliners. It's harder to keep typing <!--comments like this-->.
This is just a guess .. but
Because they are strings, they have some semantic value (the compiler doesn't get rid of them), therefore it makes sense for them to be used as docstrings. They actually become part of the AST, so extracting documentation becomes easier.
Besides, multiline comments are a bitch. Sorry to say, but regardless of the language, I don't use them for anything else than debugging purposes. Say you have code like this:
void someFunction()
{
Something
/*Some comments*/
Something else
}
Then you find out that there is something in your code you can't fix with the debugger, so you start manually debugging it by commenting out smaller and smaller chuncks of code with theese multiline comments. This would then give the function:
void someFunction()
{ /*
Something
/* Comments */
Something more*/
}
This is really irritating.
Multiline comments using IDLE on:
Mac OS X, after code selection, comment a block of code with Ctrl+3 and uncomment using Ctrl+4.
Windows, after code selection,
comment a block of code with Ctrl+Alt+3 and uncomment using Ctrl+At+4.
I remember reading about one guy who would put his multi-line comments into a triple-quoted variable:
x = '''
This is my
super-long mega-comment.
Wow there are a lot of lines
going on here!
'''
This does take up a bit of memory, but it gives you multi-line comment functionality, and plus most editors will highlight the syntax for you :)
It's also easy to comment out code by simply wrapping it with
x = '''
and
'''