We Keep Coding

How can I call a python function from an advanced scripting voice command in Dragon NaturallySpeaking?

How can I call a python function from an advanced scripting voice command in Dragon NaturallySpeaking?
I don't want to use a third-party application such as dragonfly or NatLink (paper).

So, one way is to compile it. You can put a bunch of functions that do different things all into the same program and pass along appropriate arguments to select the function you want, and pass the parameters along. Returning the result can be tricky, though, but I usually use the Clipboard (so copy the py output to clip and read from clip in Dragon). Multi-word params need to have spaces escaped (%20) and process it inside your py.
Something like this:
ShellExecute "path\program.exe myFunc myPar1, my%20Par%202", 6 ' 6 runs minimized
Wait 1
myVar = Clipboard
Hth,

Warning: This is not an answer. I am not a programmer. I don't know any Python and have no way of testing it.
This is just a suggestion on how to solve this problem. I don't know where else to put this. I'd put it in a comment, but it allows no screenshots. Please edit and suggest as you wish.
There is answer on SO that deals with calling Python from Excel, which is a similar concept: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3569988/2101890. I am trying to use that here but don't know how.
When using commands in another programming language, you can sometimes add them by adding a reference in the MyCommands Editor. You can reference DLLs and other "stuff". Some references to libraries appear automatically. I've installed Python and hoped to find Python in the References, but no such luck:
There is no Python entry here that I can find. You may have better luck. If you do find something, check the box and see if you can add python commands without causing an error when saving the command.
Maybe you can browse to %localappdata%\Programs\Python\Python36\ and add some of the DLLs from there and call Python commands from there. Or try getting it to work in the way described under 1.

"writing a python binding" vs "using command-line directly"

I have a question regarding python bindings.
I have a command-line which exposes some functionality and code is re-factored to provide the functionality through a shared library. I wanted to know what the real advantage that I get from "writing a python binding for the shared library" vs "calling the command line directly".
One obvious advantage I think will be performance, the shared library will link to the same process and the functionality can called within the same process. It will avoid spawning a new process through the command line.
Any other advantages I can get from writing a python binding for such a case ?
Thanks.

I can hardly imagine a case where one would prefer wrapping a library's command line interface over wrapping the library itself. (Unless there is a library that comes with a neat command line interface while being a total mess internally; but the OP indicates that the same functionality available via the command line is easily accessible in terms of library function calls).
The biggest advantage of writing a Python binding is a clearly defined data interface between the library and Python. Ideally, the library can operate directly on memory managed by Python, without any data copying involved.
To illustrate this, let's assume a library function does something more complicated than printing the current time, i.e., it obtains a significant amount of data as an input, performs some operation, and returns a significant amount of data as an output. If the input data is expected as an input file, Python would need to generate this file first. It must make sure that the OS has finished writing the file before calling the library via the command line (I have seen several C libraries where sleep(1) calls were used as a band-aid for this issue...). And Python must get the output back in some way.
If the command line interface does not rely on files but obtains all arguments on the command line and prints the output on stdout, Python probably needs to convert between binary data and string format, not always with the expected results. It also needs to pipe stdout back and parse it. Not a problem, but getting all this right is a lot of work.
What about error handling? Well, the command line interface will probably handle errors by printing error messages on stderr. So Python needs to capture, parse and process these as well. OTOH, the corresponding library function will almost certainly make a success flag accessible to the calling program. This is much more directly usable for Python.
All of this is obviously affecting performance, which you already mentioned.
As another point, if you are developing the library yourself, you will probably find after some time that the Python workflow has made the whole command line interface obsolete, so you can drop supporting it altogether and save yourself a lot of time.
So I think there is a clear case to be made for the Python bindings. To me, one of the biggest strengths of Python is the ease with which such wrappers can be created and maintained. Unfortunately, there are about 7 or 8 equally easy ways to do this. To get started, I recommend ctypes, since it does not require a compiler and will work with PyPy. For best performance use the native C-Python API, which I also found very easy to learn.

Using Python 3 with Python 2

I have a Python 3 file. I want to use an open-source tool on the internet (nltk), but unfortunately it only supports Python 2. There is no way for me to convert it to Python 3, nor can I convert my Python 3 file to Python 2.
If the user does not give a certain argument (on argparse) then I do something in my file. If the user does give a certain argument, however, I need to use nltk.
Writing a Python 2 script that uses nltk and then executing script that in my Python 3 script
My current idea is to write a script in Python 2 that does what I want with nltk and then run that from my current Python 3 script. However, I don't actually know how to do this.
I found this code: os.system(command) and so I will modify it to be os.system("python py2.py") (where py2.py is my newly written Python 2 file).
I'm not sure if that will work.
I also don't know if that is the most efficient way to solve my problem. I cannot find any information about it on the internet.
The data transferred will probably be quite large. Currently, my test data is about 6600 lines, utf-8. Functionality is more important than how long it takes (to a certain extent) in my case.
Also, how would I pass values from my Python 2 script to my Python 3 script?
Thanks

Is there any other way to do this?
Well, if you're sure you can't convert your script to Python 2, then having one script call the other by running the Python interpreter probably is the best way. (And, this being Python, the best way is, or at least should be, the only way.)
But are you sure? Between the six module, the 3to2 tool, and __future__ statements, it may not be as hard as you think.
Anyway, if you do need to have one script call the other, you should almost never use os.system. As the docs for that function say:
The subprocess module provides more powerful facilities for spawning new processes and retrieving their results; using that module is preferable to using this function. See the Replacing Older Functions with the subprocess Module section in the subprocess documentation for some helpful recipes.
The simplest version is this:
subprocess.check_call(["python", "py2.py"])
This runs your script, waits for it to finish, and raises an exception if the script returns failure—basically, what you wanted to do with os.system, but better. (For example, it doesn't spawn an unnecessary extra shell, it takes care of error handling, etc.)
That assumes whatever other data you need to share is being shared in some implicit, external way (e.g., by accessing files with the same name). You might be better off passing data to py2.py as command-line arguments and/or stdin, passing data back as via stdout, or even opening an explicit pipe or socket to pass things over. Without knowing more about exactly what you need to do, it's hard to suggest anything, but the docs, especially the section Replacing Older Functions with the subprocess Module have lots of discussion on the options.
To give you an idea, here's a simple example: to pass one of your filename arguments to py2.py, and then get data back from py2.py to py3.py, just have py3.py do this:
py2output = subprocess.check_output(["python", "py2.py", my_args[0]])
And then in py2.py, just print whatever you want to send back.

The Anyone hear when NLTK 3.0 will be out? here in SO points out that...
There's a Python 3 branch:
https://github.com/nltk/nltk/tree/nltk-py3k
The answer is from July 2011. It could be improved since then.
I have just looked at https://github.com/nltk/nltk. There is at least the document that talks about Python 3 port related things https://github.com/nltk/nltk/blob/2and3/web/dev/python3porting.rst.
Here is a longer discussion on NLTK and Python 3 that you may be interested in.
And the Grants to Assist Kivy, NLTK in Porting to Python 3 (published 3 days ago) is directly related to the problem.

comparing batch to python commands?

Ok i have these commands used in batch and i wanted to know the commands in python that would have a similar affect, just to be clear i dont want to just use os.system("command here") for each of them. For example in batch if you wanted a list of commands you would type help but in python you would type help() and then modules... I am not trying to use batch in a python script, i just wanna know the similarities in both languages. Like in english you say " Hello" but in french you say "Bonjour" not mix the two languages. (heres the list of commands/functions id like to know:
change the current directory
clear the screen in the console
change the prompt to something other than >>>
how to make a loop function
redirections/pipes
start an exteral program (like notepad or paint) from within a script
how to call or import another python script
how to get help with a specific module without having to type help()
#8: (in batch it would be command /?)
EDITED COMPLETELY
Thanks in Adnvance!

You can't just mechanically translate batch script to Python and hope that it works. It's a different language, with different idioms and ways of doing things, not to mention the different purpose.
I've listed some functions related to what you want below, but there's no substitute for just going and learning Python!
os.chdir
os.system("cls") is probably the simplest solution
Change sys.ps1 and sys.ps2.
Nope, there are no gotos in Python. Use for and while loops instead.
Doesn't make sense, use Python's IO instead.
subprocess.Popen
Doesn't make sense, use import or subprocess.Popen instead.
help

Most of the things you've mentioned (start, cls etc.) are not "batch commands", they're executable programs which perform certain tasks. The DOS "shell" simply executes these when it encounters them in a file. In this sense, "python" is the equivalent of a single executable (like cls).
Now that that's clear, cd (and most other OS specific tasks) are accomplished using the os module. There's no single Python statement to clear the screen - that would be wasteful. Changing the prompt of the python interpreter can be done by assigning to sys.ps1. Loops are done using while or for. Redirection doesn't happen. YOu can however use the subprocess module to run subcommands and send their outputs to files or other streams. Starting commands is done using the subprocess.Popen function. For getting help, you can either do help("command") or if you're using ipython, just say command? and hit enter.
You should really go through the tutorial rather than trying to map batch commands to Python.

The Python docs are excellent, and are the place to start. For doing shell-script like things, you'll want to check out:
http://docs.python.org/library/os.html?module-os
http://docs.python.org/library/os.path.html#module-os.path
http://docs.python.org/library/shutil.html#module-shutil
http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#module-subprocess

Python is not a system shell, Python is a multi-paradigm programming language.
If you want to compare .bat with anything, compare it with sh or bash. (You can have those on various platforms too - for example, sh for windows is in the MinGW package).

I am pretty much facing the same problem as you, daniel11. As a solution, I am learning BATCH commands and their meaning. After I understand those, I am going to write a program in Python that does the same or accomplishes the same task.
Thanks to Adam V. and katrielatex for their insight and suggestions.

Using cscope to browse Python code with VIM?

Has anyone managed successfully using cscope with Python code? I have VIM 7.2 and the latest version of cscope installed, however it doesn't get my code's tags correctly (always off by a couple of lines). I tried the pycscope script but its output isn't supported by the modern version of cscope.
Any ideas? Or an alternative for browsing Python code with VIM? (I'm specifically interested in the extra features cscope offers beyond the simple tags of ctags)

EDIT: I'm going to run through the process step by step:
Preparing the sources:
exhuberant ctags, has an option: -x
Alternatively, ctags can generate a cross reference file which lists,
in human readable form, information about the various source objects
found in a set of language files.
This is the key to the problem:
ctags -x $(ls **/*.py); # replace with find if no zsh
will give you your database of source objects in a known, format, described under
man ctags; # make sure you use exuberant ctags!
Gnu Global is not limited to only the "out of the box" type of files. Any regular file format will serve.
Also, you can use gtags-cscope, which comes with global as mentioned in section 3.7 of the manual, for a possible shortcut using gtags. You'll end up with an input of a ctags tabular file which Global/gtags can parse to get your objects, or you can use the source for pycscope together with your ctags file of known format to get an input for the vim cscope commands in
if_cscope.txt.
Either way it's quite doable.
Perhaps you'd prefer idutils?
Definintely possible since
z3c.recipe.tags
on pypi makes use of both ctags and idutils to create tag files for a buildout, which is a method I shall investigate in short while.
Of course, you could always use the greputils script below, it has support for idutils , we know idutils works with python, and if that fails, there is also something called vimentry from this year that also uses python, idutils and vim.
Reference links (not complete list):
gtags vimscript, uses Gnu global. updated 2008
greputils vimscript, contains support for the *id idutils, 2005
lid vimscript, Ancient, but this guy is pretty good, his tag and buffer howtos are amazing 2002
An updated version of pyscope, 2010
Hopefully this helps you with your problem, I certainly helped me. I would have been quite sad tonight with a maggoty pycscope.

This seems to work for me:
Change to the top directory of your python code. Create a file called cscope.files:
find . -name '*.py' > cscope.files
cscope -R
You may need to perform a cscope -b first if the cross references don't get built properly.

From a correspondence with the maintainer of cscope, this tool isn't designed to work with Python, and there are no plans to implement that compatibility. Whatever works now, apparently works by mistake, and there is no promise whatsoever that it will keep working.
It appears I've been using an out-of-date version of pycscope. The latest version 0.3 is supported by the cscope DB. The author of pycscope told me that he figured out the output format for the cscope DB from reading the source code of cscope. That format isn't documented, on purpose, but nevertheless it currently works with pycsope 0.3, which is the solution I'll be using.
I'm going to accept this answer since unfortunately no other answer provided help even after bounty was declared. No answers are upvoted, so I honestly have no idea where the bounty will go.

There is a wonderful Python-mode-klen plugin. If you have it and rope (python refactoring library) installed, then going to the definition of a particular term is as simple as <C-c>g or <C-c>rag (first is filetype mapping, second is a global one). There are much more useful features, some useless for me. All of them are disableable. Features from list of questions found at cscope-intro:
Where is this symbol used? <C-c>f. Rather confusing though, as results in quickfix list do show - instead of the actual lines (though they point to the correct location). Maybe it will be fixed.
Where is it defined?, What is this global symbol's definition?, Where is this function in the source files? <C-c>g
What is <...> global symbol's definition? <C-c>raj
Not very much, but I am not too experienced user of ropevim.

I got the same question you got, after browsing the internet, I found a way to fix this:
create a python script: cscope_scan.py
import os
codeRootDir = os.getcwd()
__revision__ = '0.1'
__author__ = 'lxd'
FILE_TYPE_LIST= ['py']
if __name__ == '__main__':
import os
f = open('cscope.files','w')
for root,dirs,files in os.walk(codeRootDir):
for file in files:
for file_type in FILE_TYPE_LIST:
if file.split('.')[-1] == file_type:
f.write('%s\n' %os.path.join(root,file))
f.close()
cmd = 'cscope -bk'
os.system(cmd)
excute this script under you code's root folder, this will generate the cscope.files and then excute cscope -b I don't know what happens to my computer, the last two lines aren't working well, but I think manually type a cscope -bk is acceptable:)

This hack also seems to force cscope to go through Python files:
cscope -Rb -s *
If you accept that cscope is apparently not designed to work with Python.
Superset any language any tool question: How to find all occurrences of a variable in Vim?