Wrap a function

[Joan Miller]

On 28 ene, 22:57, John Posner <jjpos... at optimum.net> wrote:
> On 1/28/2010 3:45 PM, Joan Miller wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 ene, 20:34, Joan Miller<pelok... at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 28 ene, 20:20, Peter<peter.milli... at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 29, 6:58 am, John Posner<jjpos... at optimum.net>  wrote:
>
> >>>> On 1/28/2010 2:24 PM, Joan Miller wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 28 ene, 19:16, Josh Holland<j... at joshh.co.uk>    wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2010-01-28, Joan Miller<pelok... at gmail.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> I've to call to many functions with the format:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> run("cmd")
>
> >>>>>> Check the docs on os.system().
> >>>>> No. I've a function that uses subprocess to run commands on the same
> >>>>> shell and so substitute to bash scrips. But a script full of run
> >>>>> ("shell_command --with --arguments") is too verbose.
>
> >>>> I'm suspicious of your original intent. Essentially, you want to write
> >>>> code in which a literal string, such as ...
>
> >>>>     ls -l
>
> >>>> ... is *not* enclosed in quotes. Why run the risk of creating confusion
> >>>> (in other people who look at your code, in syntax-checking tools, etc.)
> >>>> between variables and literals?
>
> >>>> But I'm in sympathy with your desire to make the code as clean as
> >>>> possible and to minimize the number of times you have to type a quote
> >>>> character. My suggestions:
>
> >>>> 1. Create a function (say, "Run") that encapsulates as much of the
> >>>> syntax as possible: os.system(), subprocess.call(), string-splitting,
> >>>> whatever. So an invocation would look like this:
>
> >>>>     Run("ls -l *.txt")
>
> >>>> (I think you've already done this step.)
>
> >>>> 2. Find a text editor that supports keyboard macros, so that a single
> >>>> keystroke turns this text line:
>
> >>>>     ls -l *.txt
>
> >>>> ... into this one:
>
> >>>>     Run("ls -l *.txt")
>
> >>>> HTH,
> >>>> John
>
> >>> I can't see you avoiding quotes etc, but extending on John's comment,
> >>> the obvious next step would be to run everything in a loop i.e. place
> >>> all the commands into a list and create a loop that ran each command
> >>> in the list.
>
> >> Yes, but could be necessary that were mixed with python code.
>
> >>> Almost all editors support macros - most editors support some form of
> >>> language sensitive editing (NOT the prompt call parameters style but
> >>> rather help with the syntax via a 'form' style of fill-in) that will
> >>> allow you to reduce typing effort. But macros would be the first and
> >>> easiest choice for this activity.
>
> >> The goal of my program is substitute to bash scripts, so the macros in
> >> editors are irrelevant fo this one.
>
> > I think that the best solution that I've is to build a program that
> > parses the script to convert *$ command* to run("command") before of
> > be called by python.
>
> I believe you're working on Linux, so how about using "sed"? Here's a
> (prettified) BASH transcript of a sed script (edit.sed) transforming a
> 6-line text file (myprog.py). The text file has both Python statements
> and "special commands", which have "$ " at the beginning of the line.
>
>  >>> cat myprog.py
> print "hello"
> $ ls -l
> r = range(10)
> $ grep foo bar.data
> pass
> print "bye"
>
>  >>> cat edit.sed
> s/^\$ \(.*\)/Run("\1")/
>
>  >>> sed -f edit.sed data.txt
> print "hello"
> Run("ls -l")
> r = range(10)
> Run("grep foo bar.data")
> pass
> print "bye"
>
> -John

Yes, this would a well solution. Simple and fast to build.