Does the following have any practical use in Python?
>>> def a(n):
print(n)
return a
Or even:
>>> def a(n):
print(n)
return b
>>> def b(n):
print(n+3)
return a
This is common practice, maybe not so much with functions but widely used in OOP. Basically, whenever you're not using a getter (a method that returns properties of the object) or returning something specific, there is no cost to returning the object itself. But it allows to compress code as in
house = House()
exits = house.setDoors(2).setWindows(4).getNumberOfEmergencyExitsRequired()
While alternatively, you would have to write
house = House()
house.setDoors(2)
house.setWindows(4)
exits = house.getNumberOfEmergencyExistsRequired()
It's not the end of the world, but it allows to compress code without reducing readability, hence it is a nice thing.
To your examples
The first one is straight forward and similar, it allows compression of code. The second one is actually not something I personally would do, because
a(3)(5) == a(3); b(5)
In this simple example, there is no reason why it should behave like that and might be confusing.
Back to OOP
Anyhow, in OOP, of course you could imagine
class House(object):
def addDoorByColor(self, doorColor):
door = new Door()
door.setColor(doorColor)
self.door = door
return self.door
Where then
house = House();
house.addDoorByColor('red').open()
would "open the door". This is probably not the best example for this scenario, but something I came along with right now just to show that there is potential use of returning "other objects". However, the last case would probably better be done by
door = new Door('red')
house.addDoor(door)
door.open()
Related
I'm practicing writing functions that do only one thing. I'm getting stuck with the below functions. play_games is what the user calls to run the whole program. Ideally, it should only have the call to the play_many_games method which is in one of the program's classes.
But if I don't also add the line that calls the prepare_reports function, then the reports will never get taken care of. How do I "do reports and games" if I insist on only having functions that do one thing?
Is the bottom line that we need a main function that can do more than one thing (e.g. a main function that can do both games and reports calls)?
def play_games(number_of_games):
games_engine = prepare_reports(number_of_games)
games_engine.play_many_games(number_of_games)
def prepare_reports(number_of_games):
report_requests = []
if number_of_games <= 100:
report_on_game = GameReport()
report_requests.append(report_on_game)
report_on_many_games = ManyGamesReport()
report_requests.append(report_on_many_games)
return GamesEngine(*report_requests)
Having a main function that does nothing but drive the process and call other functions, is a function that only does one thing. I suggest you create one.
You could try this, since there's not much of a point in declaring games_engine:
def play_games(number_of_games):
prepare_reports(number_of_games).play_many_games(number_of_games)
def prepare_reports(number_of_games):
report_requests = []
if number_of_games <= 100:
report_on_game = GameReport()
report_requests.append(report_on_game)
report_on_many_games = ManyGamesReport()
report_requests.append(report_on_many_games)
return GamesEngine(*report_requests)
However, what you showed us is technically a function doing only one thing. You see, by declaring games_engine = prepare_reports(number_of_games), you are just making your code easier to read.
I wanna to make my code look nicer.
Example:
result = somefunction()
if result == what_i_need:
do_something()
else:
print 'that\'s not what i need', result
I'm trying to make something like this:
if somefunction() == what_i_need:
do_something()
else:
print 'that\'s not what i need', <return value of somefunction>
Is this possible?
Here's something you could technically try, but shouldn't:
def somefunction():
val = 3 # calculate value
globals()['somefunction_return'] = val # store it in globals() first
return val # return as normal
def do_something():
print 'got it'
what_i_need = 3
if somefunction() == what_i_need:
do_something()
print 'that\'s not what i need', somefunction_return
# result:
#
# got it
# that's not what i need 3
Why shouldn't you do this?
The assignment is still happening somewhere else, so all its done is sweep the unwanted code out of the way. Pay no attention to the garbage behind the curtain.
Messing with globals() is more fragile than a simple assignment done in the way you're already doing it, partly because it's more difficult for the developer to avoid tripping over it.
It introduces something called "side effects," extra events that a function does without saying so. In this example, somefunction is doing something in addition to its planned purpose, without advertising as much. This makes code much harder to maintain.
It makes the code more difficult to read and follow, which goes against the intent of Python. Imagine that someone is reading the if structure above. How are they supposed to know where somefunction_return came from? They would have to look through every line of code until they found the offending side effect in somefunction. We might have even named it something else, like my_foobar_value, and then the reader wouldn't even have a hint that they should check somefunction.
Please continue to use the ordinary assignment you already have in place.
No, the only sensible way to capture a function's return value in Python is to explicitly assign it to a variable.
Even if there was a device for referring to a previous function's return value through implicit means, Python culture abhors this sort of thing. One oft-cited Python principle is "explicit is better than implicit".
I'm learning python from a textbook. This code is for the game Tic-Tac-Toe.
The full source code for the problem:
http://pastebin.com/Tf4KQpnk
The following function confuses me:
def human_move(board, human):
""" Get human move."""
legal = legal_moves(board)
move = None
while move not in legal:
move = ask_number("Where will you move? (0 - 8): ", 0, NUM_SQUARES)
if move not in legal: print "\nThat square is already taken. Choose another.\n"
print "Fine..."
return move
I do not know why the function receives 'human' parameter. It appears to do nothing with it.
def human_move(board, human):
How would I know to send 'human' to this function if I were to write this game from scratch? Because I can't see why it is sent to this function if it isn't used or returned.
The answer: it depends. In your example it seems useless to me, but I haven't checked it in depth.
If you create a function to be used only from your code, it is in fact useless.
def calculate_money(bank_name, my_dog_name):
return Bank(bank_name).money
money = calculate_money('Deutsche bank', 'Ralph')
But if you are working with some kind of API/Contract, the callbacks you specify might accept arguments that are not needed for a certain implementation, but for some others, are necessary.
For instance, imagine that the following function is used in some kind of framework, and you want the framework to show a pop up when the operation is finished. It could look something like this:
def my_cool_callback(names, accounts, context):
# do something blablab
context.show_message('operation finished')
But what if you don't really need the context object in your callback? you have to speficy it anyway for the signature to match... You can't call it pointless because that parameter is used sometimes.
EDIT
Another situation in which it could be useful, would be to loop through a list of functions that have almost the same signature. In that case could be ok also to have extra arguments as "garbage placeholders". Let's say all your functions need 3 arguments in general, but one needs only 2.
There were several discussions on "returning multiple values in Python", e.g.
1,
2.
This is not the "multiple-value-return" pattern I'm trying to find here.
No matter what you use (tuple, list, dict, an object), it is still a single return value and you need to parse that return value (structure) somehow.
The real benefit of multiple return value is in the upgrade process. For example,
originally, you have
def func():
return 1
print func() + func()
Then you decided that func() can return some extra information but you don't want to break previous code (or modify them one by one). It looks like
def func():
return 1, "extra info"
value, extra = func()
print value # 1 (expected)
print extra # extra info (expected)
print func() + func() # (1, 'extra info', 1, 'extra info') (not expected, we want the previous behaviour, i.e. 2)
The previous codes (func() + func()) are broken. You have to fix it.
I don't know whether I made the question clear... You can see the CLISP example. Is there an equivalent way to implement this pattern in Python?
EDIT: I put the above clisp snippets online for your quick reference.
Let me put two use cases here for multiple return value pattern. Probably someone can have alternative solutions to the two cases:
Better support smooth upgrade. This is shown in the above example.
Have simpler client side codes. See following alternative solutions I have so far. Using exception can make the upgrade process smooth but it costs more codes.
Current alternatives: (they are not "multi-value-return" constructions, but they can be engineering solutions that satisfy some of the points listed above)
tuple, list, dict, an object. As is said, you need certain parsing from the client side. e.g. if ret.success == True: blabla. You need to ret = func() before that. It's much cleaner to write if func() == True: blabal.
Use Exception. As is discussed in this thread, when the "False" case is rare, it's a nice solution. Even in this case, the client side code is still too heavy.
Use an arg, e.g. def func(main_arg, detail=[]). The detail can be list or dict or even an object depending on your design. The func() returns only original simple value. Details go to the detail argument. Problem is that the client need to create a variable before invocation in order to hold the details.
Use a "verbose" indicator, e.g. def func(main_arg, verbose=False). When verbose == False (default; and the way client is using func()), return original simple value. When verbose == True, return an object which contains simple value and the details.
Use a "version" indicator. Same as "verbose" but we extend the idea there. In this way, you can upgrade the returned object for multiple times.
Use global detail_msg. This is like the old C-style error_msg. In this way, functions can always return simple values. The client side can refer to detail_msg when necessary. One can put detail_msg in global scope, class scope, or object scope depending on the use cases.
Use generator. yield simple_return and then yield detailed_return. This solution is nice in the callee's side. However, the caller has to do something like func().next() and func().next().next(). You can wrap it with an object and override the __call__ to simplify it a bit, e.g. func()(), but it looks unnatural from the caller's side.
Use a wrapper class for the return value. Override the class's methods to mimic the behaviour of original simple return value. Put detailed data in the class. We have adopted this alternative in our project in dealing with bool return type. see the relevant commit: https://github.com/fqj1994/snsapi/commit/589f0097912782ca670568fe027830f21ed1f6fc (I don't have enough reputation to put more links in the post... -_-//)
Here are some solutions:
Based on #yupbank 's answer, I formalized it into a decorator, see github.com/hupili/multiret
The 8th alternative above says we can wrap a class. This is the current engineering solution we adopted. In order to wrap more complex return values, we may use meta class to generate the required wrapper class on demand. Have not tried, but this sounds like a robust solution.
try inspect?
i did some try, and not very elegant, but at least is doable.. and works :)
import inspect
from functools import wraps
import re
def f1(*args):
return 2
def f2(*args):
return 3, 3
PATTERN = dict()
PATTERN[re.compile('(\w+) f()')] = f1
PATTERN[re.compile('(\w+), (\w+) = f()')] = f2
def execute_method_for(call_str):
for regex, f in PATTERN.iteritems():
if regex.findall(call_str):
return f()
def multi(f1, f2):
def liu(func):
#wraps(func)
def _(*args, **kwargs):
frame,filename,line_number,function_name,lines,index=\
inspect.getouterframes(inspect.currentframe())[1]
call_str = lines[0].strip()
return execute_method_for(call_str)
return _
return liu
#multi(f1, f2)
def f():
return 1
if __name__ == '__main__':
print f()
a, b = f()
print a, b
Your case does need code editing. However, if you need a hack, you can use function attributes to return extra values , without modifying return values.
def attr_store(varname, value):
def decorate(func):
setattr(func, varname, value)
return func
return decorate
#attr_store('extra',None)
def func(input_str):
func.extra = {'hello':input_str + " ,How r you?", 'num':2}
return 1
print(func("John")+func("Matt"))
print(func.extra)
Demo : http://codepad.org/0hJOVFcC
However, be aware that function attributes will behave like static variables, and you will need to assign values to them with care, appends and other modifiers will act on previous saved values.
the magic is you should use design pattern blablabla to not use actual operation when you process the result, but use a parameter as the operation method, for your case, you can use the following code:
def x():
#return 1
return 1, 'x'*1
def f(op, f1, f2):
print eval(str(f1) + op + str(f2))
f('+', x(), x())
if you want generic solution for more complicated situation, you can extend the f function, and specify the process operation via the op parameter
Is there a pythonic preferred way to do this that I would do in C++:
for s in str:
if r = regex.match(s):
print r.groups()
I really like that syntax, imo it's a lot cleaner than having temporary variables everywhere. The only other way that's not overly complex is
for s in str:
r = regex.match(s)
if r:
print r.groups()
I guess I'm complaining about a pretty pedantic issue. I just miss the former syntax.
How about
for r in [regex.match(s) for s in str]:
if r:
print r.groups()
or a bit more functional
for r in filter(None, map(regex.match, str)):
print r.groups()
Perhaps it's a bit hacky, but using a function object's attributes to store the last result allows you to do something along these lines:
def fn(regex, s):
fn.match = regex.match(s) # save result
return fn.match
for s in strings:
if fn(regex, s):
print fn.match.groups()
Or more generically:
def cache(value):
cache.value = value
return value
for s in strings:
if cache(regex.match(s)):
print cache.value.groups()
Note that although the "value" saved can be a collection of a number of things, this approach is limited to holding only one such at a time, so more than one function may be required to handle situations where multiple values need to be saved simultaneously, such as in nested function calls, loops or other threads. So, in accordance with the DRY principle, rather than writing each one, a factory function can help:
def Cache():
def cache(value):
cache.value = value
return value
return cache
cache1 = Cache()
for s in strings:
if cache1(regex.match(s)):
# use another at same time
cache2 = Cache()
if cache2(somethingelse) != cache1.value:
process(cache2.value)
print cache1.value.groups()
...
There's a recipe to make an assignment expression but it's very hacky. Your first option doesn't compile so your second option is the way to go.
## {{{ http://code.activestate.com/recipes/202234/ (r2)
import sys
def set(**kw):
assert len(kw)==1
a = sys._getframe(1)
a.f_locals.update(kw)
return kw.values()[0]
#
# sample
#
A=range(10)
while set(x=A.pop()):
print x
## end of http://code.activestate.com/recipes/202234/ }}}
As you can see, production code shouldn't touch this hack with a ten foot, double bagged stick.
This might be an overly simplistic answer, but would you consider this:
for s in str:
if regex.match(s):
print regex.match(s).groups()
There is no pythonic way to do something that is not pythonic. It's that way for a reason, because 1, allowing statements in the conditional part of an if statement would make the grammar pretty ugly, for instance, if you allowed assignment statements in if conditions, why not also allow if statements? how would you actually write that? C like languages don't have this problem, because they don't have assignment statements. They make do with just assignment expressions and expression statements.
the second reason is because of the way
if foo = bar:
pass
looks very similar to
if foo == bar:
pass
even if you are clever enough to type the correct one, and even if most of the members on your team are sharp enough to notice it, are you sure that the one you are looking at now is exactly what is supposed to be there? it's not unreasonable for a new dev to see this and just fix it (one way or the other) and now its definitely wrong.
Whenever I find that my loop logic is getting complex I do what I would with any other bit of logic: I extract it to a function. In Python it is a lot easier than some other languages to do this cleanly.
So extract the code that just generates the items of interest:
def matching(strings, regex):
for s in strings:
r = regex.match(s)
if r: yield r
and then when you want to use it, the loop itself is as simple as they get:
for r in matching(strings, regex):
print r.groups()
Yet another answer is to use the "Assign and test" recipe for allowing assigning and testing in a single statement published in O'Reilly Media's July 2002 1st edition of the Python Cookbook and also online at Activestate. It's object-oriented, the crux of which is this:
# from http://code.activestate.com/recipes/66061
class DataHolder:
def __init__(self, value=None):
self.value = value
def set(self, value):
self.value = value
return value
def get(self):
return self.value
This can optionally be modified slightly by adding the custom __call__() method shown below to provide an alternative way to retrieve instances' values -- which, while less explicit, seems like a completely logical thing for a 'DataHolder' object to do when called, I think.
def __call__(self):
return self.value
Allowing your example to be re-written:
r = DataHolder()
for s in strings:
if r.set(regex.match(s))
print r.get().groups()
# or
print r().groups()
As also noted in the original recipe, if you use it a lot, adding the class and/or an instance of it to the __builtin__ module to make it globally available is very tempting despite the potential downsides:
import __builtin__
__builtin__.DataHolder = DataHolder
__builtin__.data = DataHolder()
As I mentioned in my other answer to this question, it must be noted that this approach is limited to holding only one result/value at a time, so more than one instance is required to handle situations where multiple values need to be saved simultaneously, such as in nested function calls, loops or other threads. That doesn't mean you should use it or the other answer, just that more effort will be required.