Wrap a function

[Joan Miller]

On 28 ene, 20:34, Joan Miller <pelok... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 ene, 20:20, Peter <peter.milli... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 6:58 am, John Posner <jjpos... at optimum.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 1/28/2010 2:24 PM, Joan Miller wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 ene, 19:16, Josh Holland<j... at joshh.co.uk>  wrote:
> > > >> On 2010-01-28, Joan Miller<pelok... at 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?
>
> > > 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.)
>
> > > 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")
>
> > > HTH,
> > > John
>
> > I can't see you avoiding quotes etc, but extending on John's comment,
> > the obvious next step would be to run everything in a loop i.e. place
> > all the commands into a list and create a loop that ran each command
> > in the list.
>
> Yes, but could be necessary that were mixed with python code.
>
> > Almost all editors support macros - most editors support some form of
> > language sensitive editing (NOT the prompt call parameters style but
> > rather help with the syntax via a 'form' style of fill-in) that will
> > allow you to reduce typing effort. But macros would be the first and
> > easiest choice for this activity.
>
> The goal of my program is substitute to bash scripts, so the macros in
> editors are irrelevant fo this one.

I think that the best solution that I've is to build a program that
parses the script to convert *$ command* to run("command") before of
be called by python.