I decided to try to preprocess function text before it’s compilation into byte-code and following execution. This is merely for training. I hardly imagine situations where it’ll be a satisfactory solution to be used. I have faced one problem which I wanted to solve in this way, but eventually a better way was found. So this is just for training and to learn something new, not for real usage.
Assume we have a function, which source code we want to be modified quite a bit before compilation:
def f():
1;a()
print('Some statements 1')
1;a()
print('Some statements 2')
Let, for example, mark some lines of it with 1;, for them to be sometimes commented and sometimes not. I just take it for example, modifications of the function may be different.
To comment these lines I made a decorator. The whole code it bellow:
from __future__ import print_function
def a():
print('a()')
def comment_1(s):
lines = s.split('\n')
return '\n'.join(line.replace(';','#;',1) if line.strip().startswith('1;') else line for line in lines)
def remove_1(f):
import inspect
source = inspect.getsource(f)
new_source = comment_1(source)
with open('temp.py','w') as file:
file.write(new_source)
from temp import f as f_new
return f_new
def f():
1;a()
print('Some statements 1')
1;a()
print('Some statements 2')
f = remove_1(f) #If decorator @remove is used above f(), inspect.getsource includes @remove inside the code.
f()
I used inspect.getsourcelines to retrieve function f code. Then I made some text-processing (in this case commenting lines starting with 1;). After that I saved it to temp.py module, which is then imported. And then a function f is decorated in the main module.
The output, when decorator is applied, is this:
Some statements 1
Some statements 2
when NOT applied is this:
a()
Some statements 1
a()
Some statements 2
What I don’t like is that I have to use hard drive to load compiled function. Can it be done without writing it to temporary module temp.py and importing from it?
The second question is about placing decorator above f: @replace. When I do this, inspect.getsourcelines returns f text with this decorator. I could manually be deleted from f‘s text. but that would be quite dangerous, as there may be more than one decorator applied. So I resorted to the old-style decoration syntax f = remove_1(f), which does the job. But still, is it possible to allow normal decoration technique with @replace?
One can avoid creating a temporary file by invoking the
execstatement on the source. (You can also explicitly callcompileprior toexecif you want additional control over compilation, butexecwill do the compilation for you, so it’s not necessary.) Correctly callingexechas the additional benefit that the function will work correctly if it accesses global variables from the namespace of its module.The problem described in the second question can be resolved by temporarily blocking the decorator while it is running. That way the decorator remains, along all the other ones, but is a no-op.
Here is the updated source.