Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 777713
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T19:39:04+00:00 2026-05-14T19:39:04+00:00

Is there a way in Python to silence stdout without wrapping a function call

  • 0

Is there a way in Python to silence stdout without wrapping a function call like following?

Original Broken Code:

from sys import stdout
from copy import copy
save_stdout = copy(stdout)
stdout = open('trash','w')
foo()
stdout = save_stdout

Edit: Corrected code from Alex Martelli

import sys
save_stdout = sys.stdout
sys.stdout = open('trash', 'w')
foo()
sys.stdout = save_stdout

That way works but appears to be terribly inefficient. There has to be a better way. Any ideas?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T19:39:05+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 7:39 pm

    Assigning the stdout variable as you’re doing has no effect whatsoever, assuming foo contains print statements — yet another example of why you should never import stuff from inside a module (as you’re doing here), but always a module as a whole (then use qualified names). The copy is irrelevant, by the way. The correct equivalent of your snippet is:

    import sys
    save_stdout = sys.stdout
    sys.stdout = open('trash', 'w')
    foo()
    sys.stdout = save_stdout
    

    Now, when the code is correct, is the time to make it more elegant or fast. For example, you could use an in-memory file-like object instead of file ‘trash’:

    import sys
    import io
    save_stdout = sys.stdout
    sys.stdout = io.BytesIO()
    foo()
    sys.stdout = save_stdout
    

    for elegance, a context is best, e.g:

    import contextlib
    import io
    import sys
    
    @contextlib.contextmanager
    def nostdout():
        save_stdout = sys.stdout
        sys.stdout = io.BytesIO()
        yield
        sys.stdout = save_stdout
    

    once you have defined this context, for any block in which you don’t want a stdout,

    with nostdout():
        foo()
    

    More optimization: you just need to replace sys.stdout with an object that has a no-op write method. For example:

    import contextlib
    import sys
    
    class DummyFile(object):
        def write(self, x): pass
    
    @contextlib.contextmanager
    def nostdout():
        save_stdout = sys.stdout
        sys.stdout = DummyFile()
        yield
        sys.stdout = save_stdout
    

    to be used the same way as the previous implementation of nostdout. I don’t think it gets any cleaner or faster than this;-).

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 463k
  • Answers 463k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer AsyncTask has a publishProgress method that should make it really… May 16, 2026 at 12:39 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer If using document.getElementById(), Your input elements have to have an… May 16, 2026 at 12:39 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer It would be a bad practice to always assume that… May 16, 2026 at 12:39 am

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.