On 28 ene, 19:58, John Posner <jjpos...@optimum.net> wrote:
> On 1/28/2010 2:24 PM, Joan Miller wrote:
>
> > On 28 ene, 19:16, Josh Holland<j...@joshh.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 2010-01-28, Joan Miller<pelok...@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?
Yes but to that code could be prepend a sign as '$' to be identified
and so be parsed.
>
> 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.)
Yes, I made a funtion very cool to call to system commands, that works
well with pipes and passes the variables (i.e. "LANG=C grep -e 'foo' /
home")
> 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")
This is not what I'm looking for. I'm supposing that could be solved
with a DSL or a macro library, any?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
