Op 15-02-17 om 13:24 schreef Steve D'Aprano: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:49 pm, Antoon Pardon wrote: > >> Op 15-02-17 om 07:28 schreef Steven D'Aprano: > [...] >>> Why not use sys.stdout.write directly? Or print? If I saw somebody using >>> this recipe in production code, in the way shown, I'd refactor it to just >>> use print. There's no advantage to re-inventing the wheel this way. >> On reason to use this is for some easy "logging", you use echo to help >> in debugging and afterwards you can either define echo as an empty >> function or something easy to find to comment out. > In Python 3 you can always add > > def print(*args, **kw): > pass > > in your module to disable printing. But a better way, in my opinion, is to > use your editor to search for: > > print( > > and replace with: > > #print(
You don't seem to understand, I don't want to disable all printing, only the diagnostics. That is easier to do if I use a different name for printing diagnostics than for regular I/O. Whether I disable it by defining an empty function or by commenting them out, doesn't really matter with this regard. > But even better, once you get to the point of putting print calls in more > than two or three places in your code, you should probably invest the time > to learn how to use the logging module. I know how to use the logging module. It is my experience that for a lot of rather small projects, the hassle of setting it up, is not worth it. YMMV. -- Antoon Pardon -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
