[IPython-dev] what goes wrong with %%file
Fernando Perez
fperez.net at gmail.com
Wed May 15 17:44:38 EDT 2013
I'm still mildly -1 on prompting on overwrite. I think of this like
the default behavior of all unix commands, which is NOT to prompt the
user for explicit interaction unless manually requests.
But if people feel strongly about it, I can live with it.
f
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Brian Granger <ellisonbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> I too think that writefile is my favorite so for. What about
> prompting on overwrite. I think Min and I are in favor of that - but
> I think this new name resolves some of the confusion so I am fine
> either way.
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:38 PM, MinRK <benjaminrk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Fernando Perez <fperez.net at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Brian Granger <ellisonbg at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > The name "%%file" is conceptually close to what the magic does = it
>>> > writes/saves/creates a *file*. What you call the action
>>> > (write/save/create) is ambiguous, the end result (file) is not. I
>>> > don't want to pick a name that emphasizes the ambiguous part of the
>>> > magic while underplaying the perfectly clear part (file).
>>>
>>> While I remember liking %%file when we had the initial naming
>>> discussions on this for these same reasons, unfortunately we have
>>> evidence that users do get confused by this. I've had the same
>>> question asked during teaching workshops over the last few months.
>>>
>>> If it's really confusing lots of users, we should find a way to
>>> mitigate that instead of having to answer this same question til the
>>> end of days.
>>>
>>> > The name "%%fwrite" requires users to make the non-obvious conceptual
>>> > jump that "f" = "file". That is a step back.
>>>
>>> Agreed, too cryptic.
>>>
>>> > If we do change the name (I am open to it but not thrilled about it) I
>>> > would prefer something that makes its purpose more obvious:
>>> >
>>> > %%writefile
>>> > %%savefile
>>> >
>>> > I also prefer names that order words in a grammatically sensible
>>> > manner (%%writefile rather than %%filewrite)
>>>
>>> Given that in python, the actual lingo uses 'write' (as in open('foo',
>>> 'w') and f.write() ), I think that writefile is probably my favorite
>>> choice. Starting with the word file helps a tiny bit
>>> discoverability/tab completion, but I also agree that a more natural
>>> reading probably outweighs that.
>>>
>>> >From everything we've seen so far, I'm leaning towards `writefile`,
>>> which should really be completely unambiguous to anyone and should
>>> clear this source of confusion once and for all.
>>
>>
>> Then I think PR #3317 best reflects consensus - rename to `writefile`,
>> no change in behavior.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> f
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IPython-dev mailing list
>>> IPython-dev at scipy.org
>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPython-dev mailing list
>> IPython-dev at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Brian E. Granger
> Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
> bgranger at calpoly.edu and ellisonbg at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> IPython-dev mailing list
> IPython-dev at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev
More information about the IPython-dev
mailing list