Re: [Pytables-users] Special __call__ method in PyTables objects

[Norm P. <nj...@nj...>]

+1 for "explicit is better" (the suggested change is fine, and as a complete
pytables newbie, I don't have any affected production code)

Thanks for making just the tool I need right now to manage a lot of
industrial real-time data. Nice work!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Francesc Alted" <fa...@py...>
To: <pyt...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:47 PM
Subject: [Pytables-users] Special __call__ method in PyTables objects


> Dear PyTables users,
>
> I'm pondering to disable most of __call__() methods is PyTables objects
> because of two things:
>
> 1.- ipython (http://ipython.scipy.org/), which is a very good shell for
> Python adds by default the parenthesis '()' if you type just a name at the
> prompt and nothing more. Example:
>
> In [7]: float
> ------> float()
> Out[7]: 0.0
>
> This is considered a good thing for most uses. Unfortunately, PyTables is
> designed to make use of bare object names to print a description of the
> object. That is, in the standard python console:
>
> >>> f.root.small
> /small (Group) 'small Group'
>   children := ['create_worst' (Table), 'search_best' (Group),
'search_worst' (Group), 'create_best' (Table)]
>
> but the same in ipython gives:
>
> In [9]: f.root.small
> ------> f.root.small()
> Out[9]: <generator object at 0x415d490c>
>
> which is not was the user intended usually.
>
> 2.- More importantly, in my struggle to make interactive work with
pytables
> easy, I'm afraid that I've abused a bit of the __call__ method, in most
> cases being introduced as a shortcut basically. For example, this is a
> typical use:
>
> >>> names=[ x['name'] for x in table(start=2, stop=1000) if
x['TDCcount']>3]
>
> which is the same as:
>
> >>> names=[ x['name'] for x in table.iterrows(start=2, stop=1000) if
x['TDCcount']>3]
>
> As I see it now, I find the second version much more clear, and although
it
> is a bit more expensive to type, if we follow the mantra "explicit is
better
> than implicit" I definitely think that the second is the way to go.
>
> So, these are the reasons why I'm planning to remove most of the
__call__()
> methods and, if necessary, replace them by acurate method names. Although
I
> think this is a good thing (TM), this may pose problems of backward
> compatibility with existing programs, and this is why I'm asking here.
>
> What do you think? You would like the change? That might cause problems
with
> your programs? Do you have a better alternative?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- 
> Francesc Alted
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
> Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
> who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM.
> Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
> _______________________________________________
> Pytables-users mailing list
> Pyt...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pytables-users
>