On 2007-08-01, Cameron Laird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On 2007-08-01, beginner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Thanks everyone for responding. It doesn't look like python has >>> it. I would definitely miss it. As Steve said, the nice thing >>> about __END__ is that things below __END__ do not have to have >>> legit syntax. That let me focus on the lines of code I am >>> debugging and do not have to worry about some bad syntax down >>> the line. This feature is especially handy if I am, saying, >>> replacing modoules or changing data structures. >> >>A C-like trick might be helpful while refactoring: >> >><working code> >>if False: >> <non-working code> >> >>You have to indent all the non-working code by one level, but >>with a good editor that's a snap. >> >>Python will still parse the following lines (it must be valid >>Python syntax), but the resulting parse tree won't be executed. > . > . > . > I want to re-emphasize the "triple-quote it" tip mentioned > earlier in this thread. I think the original questioner > will find this quite satisfying, if I understand his situ- > ation at all. > > *I* certainly have source code with embedded "junk" > commented out as multi-line strings.
I used to do that, but now that I use doctests so much it's infeasible to comment out arbitrary code that way, since they can't necessarily nest. But Diez suggestion is even easier than the if False suggestion I made. -- Neil Cerutti -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
