Contribute to raldone01/python_lessons_py development by creating an account on GitHub.
Python allows programmers to pass additional arguments to functions via comments.
Now armed with this knowledge head out and spread it to all code bases.
Feel free to use the code I wrote in your projects.
from lib import add
# Go ahead and change the comments.
# See how python uses them as arguments.
result = add() # 1 2
print(result)
result = add() # 3 4
print(result)
result = add() # 3 4 5 20
print(result)
Can we just clarify that you mean that comments should never be parsed by the language engine. There are valid annotation systems, but the goal is alway to ensure that one passable can never impact the other.
Imagine if here a comment could create a syntax error! This is even worse for runtime scripting languages like python.
Sure, but let’s just clarify that this is someone going out of their way to create this problem, using Python’s ability to read it’s own code.
Basically, you can load any text file, including a source code file, and do whatever you want with it.
So, a function can be written that finds out whatever’s calling it, reads that file, parses the comments, and uses them as values. This can also be done with introspection, using the same mechanism that displays tracebacks.
This isn’t standard python. lib is not in the standard library. Python also doesn’t have any special variables where it stores comments, other than __doc__ which stores a docstring. If I had to guess, add is reading the file/REPL via __file__.
It’s a string, although sometimes Python conflates the two. The recommended way to make a multi-line comment is to just make a multi-line string and just don’t use it.
Because it doesn’t seem like a useful feature. The only occasion I imagine this could be helpful is with logging to the console to track when the function breaks, but even then - still trivial to replace.
The add function in the example above probably traverses the call stack to see what line of the script is currently being executed by the interpreter, then reads in that line in the original script, parses the comment, and subs in the values in the function call.
This functionality exists so when you get a traceback you can see what line of code triggered it in the error message
capability is fine. Conflation is stupid. You can also use code to erase itself, but thinking that’s a good idea is generally wrong. But to remove that, you also remove the general ability to erase files.
One case where I find it useful, tho it operates in a more limited way, is code in block blocks within code comments in Rust, which are also printed out in the generated documentation. They essentially get ran as part of your unit tests. This is great for making sure that, eg, your examples left in code comments actually work, especially if they’re written in a way that functions like a unit test.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
IMO comments should never ever be parsed under any circumstances but I probably don’t know enough to really speak on this
Can we just clarify that you mean that comments should never be parsed by the language engine. There are valid annotation systems, but the goal is alway to ensure that one passable can never impact the other.
Imagine if here a comment could create a syntax error! This is even worse for runtime scripting languages like python.
Sure, but let’s just clarify that this is someone going out of their way to create this problem, using Python’s ability to read it’s own code.
Basically, you can load any text file, including a source code file, and do whatever you want with it.
So, a function can be written that finds out whatever’s calling it, reads that file, parses the comments, and uses them as values. This can also be done with introspection, using the same mechanism that displays tracebacks.
This isn’t standard python.
libis not in the standard library. Python also doesn’t have any special variables where it stores comments, other than__doc__which stores a docstring. If I had to guess,addis reading the file/REPL via__file__.Is __doc__ storing a comment or just a text string?
It’s a string, although sometimes Python conflates the two. The recommended way to make a multi-line comment is to just make a multi-line string and just don’t use it.
Comments should be removed before shipping.
Well now that causes breakage two dependencies down the line. Good luck with that. 😅
Python is an interpreted language but for a compiled language absolutely (and obviously).
I guess there could be just a script before deployment.
No, your intuition is correct, this is extremely cursed.
Seen in a code review (paraphrased):
“Why does this break when you add comments in the middle?”
Why would python even expose the current line number? What’s it useful for?
On a serious note:
This feature is actually very useful. Libraries can use it create neat error messages. It is also very useful when logging information to a file.
You should however never ever parse the source code and react to it differently.
You underestimate the power of us, print debuggers.
Why wouldn’t it? Lots of languages do. In C++ you have
__LINE__.Because it doesn’t seem like a useful feature. The only occasion I imagine this could be helpful is with logging to the console to track when the function breaks, but even then - still trivial to replace.
The
addfunction in the example above probably traverses the call stack to see what line of the script is currently being executed by the interpreter, then reads in that line in the original script, parses the comment, and subs in the values in the function call.This functionality exists so when you get a traceback you can see what line of code triggered it in the error message
Ignoring lint issues comes to mind as an at least somewhat reasonable use case.
+1 to that!
It’s quite useful to parse comments and generate documentation from them, either as plain old hypertext or in your editor with LSP.
That sounds fine if you have something reading the file independently. But the actual executable code should not be able to access its own comments.
capability is fine. Conflation is stupid. You can also use code to erase itself, but thinking that’s a good idea is generally wrong. But to remove that, you also remove the general ability to erase files.
Comments aren’t normally accessible unless you (independently) open and read the source code file as you would with any arbitrary file.
One case where I find it useful, tho it operates in a more limited way, is code in block blocks within code comments in Rust, which are also printed out in the generated documentation. They essentially get ran as part of your unit tests. This is great for making sure that, eg, your examples left in code comments actually work, especially if they’re written in a way that functions like a unit test.
Some languages use the comments to generate documentation. Something like
// function to add two numbers func Add(num1 int, num2 int)