On Jun 23, 6:44 am, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies in this post. Just to conclude, I want to
> post a piece of code I wrote to encapsulate function creation in this
> way:
>
> def create_function(code):
> """ Create and return the function defined in code.
>
Since nobody mentioned textwrap.dedent yet as an alternative to the
old "if 1:" trick, I thought I should do so. :)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Le Tuesday 24 June 2008 07:18:47 eliben, vous avez écrit :
> > If code generation is not the best, and I fail to see any performance
> > issue that could explain such a choice, except a misunderstanding of
> > what "compilation" means in python, just don't use it, use closures or
> > callable insta
eliben wrote:
And while we're on the topic of what compilation means in Python,
It depends on the implementation.
I'm
not sure I fully understand the difference between compiled (.pyc)
code and exec-ed code. Is the exec-ed code turned to bytecode too,
i.e. it will be as efficient as comp
> If code generation is not the best, and I fail to see any performance issue
> that could explain such a choice, except a misunderstanding of
> what "compilation" means in python, just don't use it, use closures or
> callable instances, there are many way to achieve this.
And while we're on the t
On Jun 21, 7:52 am, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eliben wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 2:44 pm, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> eliben wrote:
> >> > Additionally, I've found indentation to be a problem in such
> >> > constructs. Is there a workable way to indent the code at the level
Maric Michaud a écrit :
Le Monday 23 June 2008 09:22:29 Bruno Desthuilliers, vous avez écrit :
With some help from the guys at IRC I came to realize your way doesn't
do the same. It creates a function that, when called, creates 'foo' on
globals(). This is not exactly what I need.
I possibly mes
Le Monday 23 June 2008 09:22:29 Bruno Desthuilliers, vous avez écrit :
> > With some help from the guys at IRC I came to realize your way doesn't
> > do the same. It creates a function that, when called, creates 'foo' on
> > globals(). This is not exactly what I need.
>
> I possibly messed up a cou
eliben a écrit :
d = {}
execcode in globals(), d
return d['foo']
My way:
return function(compile(code, '', 'exec'), globals())
With some help from the guys at IRC I came to realize your way doesn't
do the same. It creates a function that, when called, creates 'foo' on
globals(). This
Thanks for all the replies in this post. Just to conclude, I want to
post a piece of code I wrote to encapsulate function creation in this
way:
def create_function(code):
""" Create and return the function defined in code.
"""
m = re.match('\s*def\s+([a-zA-Z_]\w*)\s*\(', code)
if m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 20 juin, 21:44, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>> The generic version has to make a lot of decisions at runtime, based
>> on the format specification.
>> Extract the offset from the spec, extract the length.
... ...
> Just my 2 cents. Truth is that as long as i
On Jun 21, 9:40 am, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I see. In my case I only evaluate function definitions with 'exec', so
> > > I only need to de-indent the first line, and the others can be
> > > indented because they're in a new scope anyway. What you suggest works
> > > for arbitrary c
> > I see. In my case I only evaluate function definitions with 'exec', so
> > I only need to de-indent the first line, and the others can be
> > indented because they're in a new scope anyway. What you suggest works
> > for arbitrary code and not only function definitions. It's a nice
> > trick wi
On Jun 21, 2:02 pm, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 8:52 am, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > eliben wrote:
> > > On Jun 20, 2:44 pm, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> eliben wrote:
> > >> > Additionally, I've found indentation to be a problem in such
> >
On Jun 21, 8:52 am, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eliben wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 2:44 pm, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> eliben wrote:
> >> > Additionally, I've found indentation to be a problem in such
> >> > constructs. Is there a workable way to indent the code at the level
eliben wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2:44 pm, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> eliben wrote:
>> > Additionally, I've found indentation to be a problem in such
>> > constructs. Is there a workable way to indent the code at the level of
>> > build_func, and not on column 0 ?
>>
>> exec"if 1:" + code.
On Jun 20, 2:44 pm, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eliben wrote:
> > Additionally, I've found indentation to be a problem in such
> > constructs. Is there a workable way to indent the code at the level of
> > build_func, and not on column 0 ?
>
> exec"if 1:" + code.rstrip()
>
> Peter
Why
>d = {}
> execcode in globals(), d
> return d['foo']
>
> My way:
>
> return function(compile(code, '', 'exec'), globals())
>
With some help from the guys at IRC I came to realize your way doesn't
do the same. It creates a function that, when called, creates 'foo' on
globals(). This is not
> So you are saying that for example "if do_reverse: data.reverse()" is
> *much* slower than "data.reverse()" ? I would expect that checking the
> truthness of a boolean would be negligible compared to the reverse
> itself. Did you try converting all checks to identity comparisons with
> None ? I m
On 20 juin, 21:44, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 3:19 pm, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
(snip)
> > It's still not clear why the generic version is so slower, unless you
> > extract only a few selected fields, not all of them. Can you post a
> > sample of how you used
On 20 juin, 21:41, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [1] except using compile to build a code object with the function's
> > body, then instanciate a function object using this code, but I'm not
> > sure whether it will buy you much more performance-wise. I'd personnaly
> > prefer this because
On Jun 20, 3:44 pm, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 3:19 pm, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 8:03 am, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 20, 9:17 am, Bruno Desthuilliers
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > eliben a écrit :> Hello,
>
>
On Jun 20, 3:19 pm, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 8:03 am, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 9:17 am, Bruno Desthuilliers
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > eliben a écrit :> Hello,
>
> > > > In a Python program I'm writing I need to dynamically genera
> [1] except using compile to build a code object with the function's
> body, then instanciate a function object using this code, but I'm not
> sure whether it will buy you much more performance-wise. I'd personnaly
> prefer this because I find it more explicit and readable, but YMMV.
>
How is com
> FWIW, when I had a similar challenge for dynamic coding, I just
> generated a py file and then imported it. This technique was nice
> because can also work with Pyrex or Psyco.
>
I guess this is not much different than using exec, at the conceptual
level. exec is perhaps more suitable when you
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Bruno Desthuilliers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just to make things clear: you do know that you can dynamically build
> functions without exec, do you ?
Actually, I don't know how to do this, but would like to. Can you point me
to a place where I can read more a
eliben a écrit :
On Jun 20, 9:17 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
eliben a écrit :> Hello,
In a Python program I'm writing I need to dynamically generate
functions[*]
(snip)
[*] I know that each time a code generation question comes up people
suggest that there's a better way to achieve this
On Jun 20, 5:03 am, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've rewritten it using a dynamically generated procedure
> for each field, that does hard coded access to its data. For example:
>
> def get_counter(packet):
> data = packet[2:6]
> data.reverse()
> return data
>
> This gave me a huge sp
On Jun 20, 8:03 am, eliben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:17 am, Bruno Desthuilliers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > eliben a écrit :> Hello,
>
> > > In a Python program I'm writing I need to dynamically generate
> > > functions[*]
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > [*] I know that each time a code g
eliben wrote:
> Additionally, I've found indentation to be a problem in such
> constructs. Is there a workable way to indent the code at the level of
> build_func, and not on column 0 ?
exec "if 1:" + code.rstrip()
Peter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jun 20, 9:17 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> eliben a écrit :> Hello,
>
> > In a Python program I'm writing I need to dynamically generate
> > functions[*]
>
> (snip)
>
> > [*] I know that each time a code generation question comes up people
> > suggest that there's a better way to achieve thi
eliben a écrit :
Hello,
In a Python program I'm writing I need to dynamically generate
functions[*]
(snip)
[*] I know that each time a code generation question comes up people
suggest that there's a better way to achieve this, without using exec,
eval, etc.
Just to make things clear: you
32 matches
Mail list logo
