Issue 7391: Remove questionable and outdated HOWTO document with permission from its author.
This commit is contained in:
Raymond Hettinger
parent
e147484666
commit
af9be06b3c
|
|
@ -1,290 +0,0 @@
|
|||
************************************
|
||||
Idioms and Anti-Idioms in Python
|
||||
************************************
|
||||
|
||||
:Author: Moshe Zadka
|
||||
|
||||
This document is placed in the public domain.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
.. topic:: Abstract
|
||||
|
||||
This document can be considered a companion to the tutorial. It shows how to use
|
||||
Python, and even more importantly, how *not* to use Python.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Language Constructs You Should Not Use
|
||||
======================================
|
||||
|
||||
While Python has relatively few gotchas compared to other languages, it still
|
||||
has some constructs which are only useful in corner cases, or are plain
|
||||
dangerous.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
from module import \*
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Inside Function Definitions
|
||||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||||
|
||||
``from module import *`` is *invalid* inside function definitions. While many
|
||||
versions of Python do not check for the invalidity, it does not make it more
|
||||
valid, no more than having a smart lawyer makes a man innocent. Do not use it
|
||||
like that ever. Even in versions where it was accepted, it made the function
|
||||
execution slower, because the compiler could not be certain which names are
|
||||
local and which are global. In Python 2.1 this construct causes warnings, and
|
||||
sometimes even errors.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
At Module Level
|
||||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||||
|
||||
While it is valid to use ``from module import *`` at module level it is usually
|
||||
a bad idea. For one, this loses an important property Python otherwise has ---
|
||||
you can know where each toplevel name is defined by a simple "search" function
|
||||
in your favourite editor. You also open yourself to trouble in the future, if
|
||||
some module grows additional functions or classes.
|
||||
|
||||
One of the most awful question asked on the newsgroup is why this code::
|
||||
|
||||
f = open("www")
|
||||
f.read()
|
||||
|
||||
does not work. Of course, it works just fine (assuming you have a file called
|
||||
"www".) But it does not work if somewhere in the module, the statement ``from
|
||||
os import *`` is present. The :mod:`os` module has a function called
|
||||
:func:`open` which returns an integer. While it is very useful, shadowing a
|
||||
builtin is one of its least useful properties.
|
||||
|
||||
Remember, you can never know for sure what names a module exports, so either
|
||||
take what you need --- ``from module import name1, name2``, or keep them in the
|
||||
module and access on a per-need basis --- ``import module; print(module.name)``.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
When It Is Just Fine
|
||||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||||
|
||||
There are situations in which ``from module import *`` is just fine:
|
||||
|
||||
* The interactive prompt. For example, ``from math import *`` makes Python an
|
||||
amazing scientific calculator.
|
||||
|
||||
* When extending a module in C with a module in Python.
|
||||
|
||||
* When the module advertises itself as ``from import *`` safe.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
from module import name1, name2
|
||||
-------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
This is a "don't" which is much weaker than the previous "don't"s but is still
|
||||
something you should not do if you don't have good reasons to do that. The
|
||||
reason it is usually bad idea is because you suddenly have an object which lives
|
||||
in two separate namespaces. When the binding in one namespace changes, the
|
||||
binding in the other will not, so there will be a discrepancy between them. This
|
||||
happens when, for example, one module is reloaded, or changes the definition of
|
||||
a function at runtime.
|
||||
|
||||
Bad example::
|
||||
|
||||
# foo.py
|
||||
a = 1
|
||||
|
||||
# bar.py
|
||||
from foo import a
|
||||
if something():
|
||||
a = 2 # danger: foo.a != a
|
||||
|
||||
Good example::
|
||||
|
||||
# foo.py
|
||||
a = 1
|
||||
|
||||
# bar.py
|
||||
import foo
|
||||
if something():
|
||||
foo.a = 2
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
except:
|
||||
-------
|
||||
|
||||
Python has the ``except:`` clause, which catches all exceptions. Since *every*
|
||||
error in Python raises an exception, using ``except:`` can make many
|
||||
programming errors look like runtime problems, which hinders the debugging
|
||||
process.
|
||||
|
||||
The following code shows a great example of why this is bad::
|
||||
|
||||
try:
|
||||
foo = opne("file") # misspelled "open"
|
||||
except:
|
||||
sys.exit("could not open file!")
|
||||
|
||||
The second line triggers a :exc:`NameError`, which is caught by the except
|
||||
clause. The program will exit, and the error message the program prints will
|
||||
make you think the problem is the readability of ``"file"`` when in fact
|
||||
the real error has nothing to do with ``"file"``.
|
||||
|
||||
A better way to write the above is ::
|
||||
|
||||
try:
|
||||
foo = opne("file")
|
||||
except IOError:
|
||||
sys.exit("could not open file")
|
||||
|
||||
When this is run, Python will produce a traceback showing the :exc:`NameError`,
|
||||
and it will be immediately apparent what needs to be fixed.
|
||||
|
||||
.. index:: bare except, except; bare
|
||||
|
||||
Because ``except:`` catches *all* exceptions, including :exc:`SystemExit`,
|
||||
:exc:`KeyboardInterrupt`, and :exc:`GeneratorExit` (which is not an error and
|
||||
should not normally be caught by user code), using a bare ``except:`` is almost
|
||||
never a good idea. In situations where you need to catch all "normal" errors,
|
||||
such as in a framework that runs callbacks, you can catch the base class for
|
||||
all normal exceptions, :exc:`Exception`.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Exceptions
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
Exceptions are a useful feature of Python. You should learn to raise them
|
||||
whenever something unexpected occurs, and catch them only where you can do
|
||||
something about them.
|
||||
|
||||
The following is a very popular anti-idiom ::
|
||||
|
||||
def get_status(file):
|
||||
if not os.path.exists(file):
|
||||
print("file not found")
|
||||
sys.exit(1)
|
||||
return open(file).readline()
|
||||
|
||||
Consider the case where the file gets deleted between the time the call to
|
||||
:func:`os.path.exists` is made and the time :func:`open` is called. In that
|
||||
case the last line will raise an :exc:`IOError`. The same thing would happen
|
||||
if *file* exists but has no read permission. Since testing this on a normal
|
||||
machine on existent and non-existent files makes it seem bugless, the test
|
||||
results will seem fine, and the code will get shipped. Later an unhandled
|
||||
:exc:`IOError` (or perhaps some other :exc:`EnvironmentError`) escapes to the
|
||||
user, who gets to watch the ugly traceback.
|
||||
|
||||
Here is a somewhat better way to do it. ::
|
||||
|
||||
def get_status(file):
|
||||
try:
|
||||
return open(file).readline()
|
||||
except EnvironmentError as err:
|
||||
print("Unable to open file: {}".format(err))
|
||||
sys.exit(1)
|
||||
|
||||
In this version, *either* the file gets opened and the line is read (so it
|
||||
works even on flaky NFS or SMB connections), or an error message is printed
|
||||
that provides all the available information on why the open failed, and the
|
||||
application is aborted.
|
||||
|
||||
However, even this version of :func:`get_status` makes too many assumptions ---
|
||||
that it will only be used in a short running script, and not, say, in a long
|
||||
running server. Sure, the caller could do something like ::
|
||||
|
||||
try:
|
||||
status = get_status(log)
|
||||
except SystemExit:
|
||||
status = None
|
||||
|
||||
But there is a better way. You should try to use as few ``except`` clauses in
|
||||
your code as you can --- the ones you do use will usually be inside calls which
|
||||
should always succeed, or a catch-all in a main function.
|
||||
|
||||
So, an even better version of :func:`get_status()` is probably ::
|
||||
|
||||
def get_status(file):
|
||||
return open(file).readline()
|
||||
|
||||
The caller can deal with the exception if it wants (for example, if it tries
|
||||
several files in a loop), or just let the exception filter upwards to *its*
|
||||
caller.
|
||||
|
||||
But the last version still has a serious problem --- due to implementation
|
||||
details in CPython, the file would not be closed when an exception is raised
|
||||
until the exception handler finishes; and, worse, in other implementations
|
||||
(e.g., Jython) it might not be closed at all regardless of whether or not
|
||||
an exception is raised.
|
||||
|
||||
The best version of this function uses the ``open()`` call as a context
|
||||
manager, which will ensure that the file gets closed as soon as the
|
||||
function returns::
|
||||
|
||||
def get_status(file):
|
||||
with open(file) as fp:
|
||||
return fp.readline()
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Using the Batteries
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
Every so often, people seem to be writing stuff in the Python library again,
|
||||
usually poorly. While the occasional module has a poor interface, it is usually
|
||||
much better to use the rich standard library and data types that come with
|
||||
Python than inventing your own.
|
||||
|
||||
A useful module very few people know about is :mod:`os.path`. It always has the
|
||||
correct path arithmetic for your operating system, and will usually be much
|
||||
better than whatever you come up with yourself.
|
||||
|
||||
Compare::
|
||||
|
||||
# ugh!
|
||||
return dir+"/"+file
|
||||
# better
|
||||
return os.path.join(dir, file)
|
||||
|
||||
More useful functions in :mod:`os.path`: :func:`basename`, :func:`dirname` and
|
||||
:func:`splitext`.
|
||||
|
||||
There are also many useful built-in functions people seem not to be aware of
|
||||
for some reason: :func:`min` and :func:`max` can find the minimum/maximum of
|
||||
any sequence with comparable semantics, for example, yet many people write
|
||||
their own :func:`max`/:func:`min`. Another highly useful function is
|
||||
:func:`functools.reduce` which can be used to repeatly apply a binary
|
||||
operation to a sequence, reducing it to a single value. For example, compute
|
||||
a factorial with a series of multiply operations::
|
||||
|
||||
>>> n = 4
|
||||
>>> import operator, functools
|
||||
>>> functools.reduce(operator.mul, range(1, n+1))
|
||||
24
|
||||
|
||||
When it comes to parsing numbers, note that :func:`float`, :func:`int` and
|
||||
:func:`long` all accept string arguments and will reject ill-formed strings
|
||||
by raising an :exc:`ValueError`.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Using Backslash to Continue Statements
|
||||
======================================
|
||||
|
||||
Since Python treats a newline as a statement terminator, and since statements
|
||||
are often more than is comfortable to put in one line, many people do::
|
||||
|
||||
if foo.bar()['first'][0] == baz.quux(1, 2)[5:9] and \
|
||||
calculate_number(10, 20) != forbulate(500, 360):
|
||||
pass
|
||||
|
||||
You should realize that this is dangerous: a stray space after the ``\`` would
|
||||
make this line wrong, and stray spaces are notoriously hard to see in editors.
|
||||
In this case, at least it would be a syntax error, but if the code was::
|
||||
|
||||
value = foo.bar()['first'][0]*baz.quux(1, 2)[5:9] \
|
||||
+ calculate_number(10, 20)*forbulate(500, 360)
|
||||
|
||||
then it would just be subtly wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
It is usually much better to use the implicit continuation inside parenthesis:
|
||||
|
||||
This version is bulletproof::
|
||||
|
||||
value = (foo.bar()['first'][0]*baz.quux(1, 2)[5:9]
|
||||
+ calculate_number(10, 20)*forbulate(500, 360))
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ Currently, the HOWTOs are:
|
|||
cporting.rst
|
||||
curses.rst
|
||||
descriptor.rst
|
||||
doanddont.rst
|
||||
functional.rst
|
||||
logging.rst
|
||||
logging-cookbook.rst
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue