[IPython-dev] cell magics
Sat Feb 16 16:54:32 CST 2013
On 2/16/13 4:39 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> That's quite a lot to read, but while I think about it in more detail, a
> couple of bits that jump out at me:
It was quite a lot to write :).
> On 16 February 2013 22:07, Jason Grout <email@example.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> %time some_function
> now I want to add a few more things to the time run. All I have to do
> is change where the string is:
> some_other function
> and the lack of a string after %time tells me that I should look below
> %time for the string. I don't have to constantly keep adjusting the %
> For %%timeit, however, we use the remainder of the line as a setup
> statement, before timing the body. Now you can argue that that's a bad
> idea, but it's useful to have that distinction.
%timeit('setup code', runs=4)
some other function
would work fine, right?
Or (more explicitly)
%timeit(runs=4, setup='setup code')
> P.S. Actually, after thinking about it more, since a single % is
> ambiguous syntax, I think I would prefer all string decorators be
> invoked with %%, which is invalid python syntax. Then we won't have
> this problem:
> or this problem:
> a="time: %d"\
> My input transformation work should handle such cases. Arguably it could
> be done more easily if we used a syntax like %% that could never appear
> in a valid Python statement, but it still wouldn't be trivial:
> a = """
But if it's a token-based transformer, it will know %%foo is inside a
string, and it won't see that as a token.
> > ...
> I think it's pretty clear which statement is more readable. This focus
> on readability over brevity (remember, "Readability counts") is part of
> why python is so good in general.
> And part of the reason IPython exists is to provide for the cases when
> you do want brevity. Because there are times when you want to type '%run
> -d foo' than 'pdb.runcall(execfile, "foo.py")'.
> Of course, IPython has evolved - when it was only a shell, most of what
> you entered was just for single use, so readability wasn't hugely
> important. When you're writing & publishing a notebook, readability is a
> much bigger deal. But I've yet to see a particular problem with people
> abusing magic syntax and making notebooks hard to read.
And it's only the *very*, *very* beginning....
> > * backwards compatibility (with IPP and previous IPython versions, as
> > well as IDL and matlab apparently?). But I'll point out that we can
> > easily support this too, in almost exactly the same invocation:
> > %timeit('-r 5 -and -other -options') 2+3
> Honestly, I wouldn't call that 'almost the same invocation'. Moreover,
> it sacrifices the brevity without enforcing any corresponding gain in
I wasn't advocating for that, of course, I was advocating for the
readable version below.
More information about the IPython-dev