Issue13678
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2011-12-29 19:08 by Jimbofbx, last changed 2022-04-11 14:57 by admin. This issue is now closed.
Messages (5) | |||
---|---|---|---|
msg150344 - (view) | Author: James Hutchison (Jimbofbx) | Date: 2011-12-29 19:08 | |
In python is currently there a way to elegantly throw an error if a variable is already in the current scope? For example: def longfunc(self, filename): FILE = open(filename); header = FILE.readline(); ... bunch of code ... childfiles = self.children; for child in childfiles: FILE = open(child); header = FILE.readline(); ... do something with header ... for line in FILE: ... etc ... In this case, I'm accidentally overriding the old values of FILE and header, resulting in a bug. But I'm not going to catch this. I've had a couple of real life bugs due to this that were a lot more subtle and lived for months without anyone noticing the output data was slightly wrong. This situation could be prevented if there was a way to say something along the lines of "new FILE = open(child)" or "new header = FILE.readline()" and have python throw an error to let me know that it already exists. This would also make code clearer because it allows the intended scope of a variable to become more apparent. Since "new var = something" is a syntax error, adding this functionality wouldn't break old code, as long as python would allow for 'new' (or whatever the keyword would end up being) to also be a variable name (like "new new = 1" or "new = 1") |
|||
msg150346 - (view) | Author: Eric Snow (eric.snow) * | Date: 2011-12-29 20:09 | |
Interesting thought, the syntax seems unnecessary. Adding new syntax to the language is something that happens rarely and only with a _lot_ of consideration. As a slightly more verbose alternative, currently you can do this: def fail_if_defined(*args, namespace): for name in args: if name in namespace: raise AlreadyBoundError(name) And in your code you would put the following where you cared about it: fail_if_defined("FILE", "header", namespace=locals()) You could even drop the namespace parameter (since it's sort of boilerplate): def fail_if_defined(*args): namespace = inspect.currentframe().f_back.f_locals for name in args: if name in namespace: raise AlreadyBoundError(name) However, if you are going to the trouble of sticking those in place (or of selectively using a new syntax), you are likely paying attention to the the situation already, rendering either solution unnecessary. Ultimately, this is something better addressed instead by keeping your functions small, by being a little more cautious in naming, and particularly by careful unit testing. |
|||
msg150347 - (view) | Author: Benjamin Peterson (benjamin.peterson) * | Date: 2011-12-29 20:39 | |
I think this more the domain of pylint/pyflakes. |
|||
msg150349 - (view) | Author: James Hutchison (Jimbofbx) | Date: 2011-12-29 21:28 | |
For starters, this would be most efficient implementation: def unique(varname, value, scope): assert(not varname in scope); scope[varname] = value; Usage: unique('b', 1, locals()); print(b); But you can't put that in a loop else it will false trigger. Ideally this wouldn't false trigger. This could be done by having python internally associate a line number with each explicit variable declaration. Anyways, an external python function would be too slow for my use case. Likewise, since it would be something you could use a lot, it should be implemented in the underlying C code to give it minimal overhead. Keeping functions small is very impractical at times. I shouldn't create 50 randomly named one use functions in my class as a safeguard against accidental overwriting when I have a legitimately complicated piece of code that can't be dissected without becoming unreadable. In many cases I might need 8 or 9 locals at a time in a single line in each loop section. I don't see how this is the area of pylint/pyflakes at all. The idea is to make it so the human doesn't have to carefully inspect their code in order to decide if they made a mistake or not. Inspecting a long list of warnings is no better, and arguably I could pull up a bunch of python language design decisions and ask why they were made if pylint/pyflakes exists. If such a change would have be implemented after much consideration and discussion, I don't see how closing my post helps accomplish that. |
|||
msg150351 - (view) | Author: Benjamin Peterson (benjamin.peterson) * | Date: 2011-12-29 22:02 | |
I suggest you mail python-ideas. |
History | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | User | Action | Args |
2022-04-11 14:57:25 | admin | set | github: 57887 |
2011-12-29 22:02:02 | benjamin.peterson | set | messages: + msg150351 |
2011-12-29 21:28:42 | Jimbofbx | set | messages: + msg150349 |
2011-12-29 20:39:10 | benjamin.peterson | set | status: open -> closed nosy: + benjamin.peterson messages: + msg150347 resolution: rejected |
2011-12-29 20:09:55 | eric.snow | set | nosy:
+ eric.snow messages: + msg150346 |
2011-12-29 19:08:38 | Jimbofbx | create |