I need a help with a code here, i wanted to implement the switch case pattern in python so like some tutorial said , i can use a dictionary for that but here is my problem:<
Since the code you want to execute in each case is from a safe source, you could store each snippet in a separate string expression in a dictionary and do something along these lines:
message = { 'create': '"blabla %s" % msg(some_data)',
'update': '"blabla %s" % msg(other_data)',
'delete': '"blabla %s" % diff(other_data, some_data)'
}
return eval(message[type_])
The expression on the last line could also be eval(message.get(type_, '"unknown type_"'))
to provide a default. Either way, to keep things readable the ugly details could be hidden:
switch = lambda type_: eval(message.get(type_, '"unknown type_"'))
return switch(type_)
The code snippets can even be precompiled for a little more speed:
from compiler import compile # deprecated since version 2.6: Removed in Python 3
for k in message:
message[k] = compile(message[k], 'message case', 'eval')
Here's something a little different (although somewhat similar to @Tumbleweed's) and arguably more "object-oriented". Instead of explicitly using a dictionary to handle the various cases, you could use a Python class (which contains a dictionary).
This approach provides a fairly natural looking translation of C/C++ switch
statements into Python code. Like the latter it defers execution of the code that handles each case and allows a default one to be provided.
The code for each switch
class method that corresponds to a case can consist of more than one line of code instead of the single return <expression>
ones shown here and are all compiled only once. One difference or limitation though, is that the handling in one method won't and can't be made to automatically "fall-though" into the code of the following one (which isn't an issue in the example, but would be nice).
class switch:
def create(self): return "blabla %s" % msg(some_data)
def update(self): return "blabla %s" % msg(other_data)
def delete(self): return "blabla %s" % diff(other_data, some_data)
def _default(self): return "unknown type_"
def __call__(self, type_): return getattr(self, type_, self._default)()
switch = switch() # only needed once
return switch(type_)
message = { 'create':msg(some_data or ''),
'update':msg(other_data or '')
# can have more
}
Better yet, to prevent msg
from being executed just to fill the dict:
message = { 'create':(msg,some_data),
'update':(msg,other_data),
# can have more
}
func,data=message[msg_type]
func(data)
and now you are free to define a more sensible msg
function which can deal with an argument equal to None
:
def msg(data):
if data is None: data=''
...
Turns out the jokes on me and I was pwned in the switch inventing game 5 years before I even learned python: Readable switch construction without lambdas or dictionaries. Oh well. Read below for another way to do it.
Here. Have a switch statement. (with some nice cleanups by @martineau)
with switch(foo):
@case(1)
def _():
print "1"
@case(2)
def _():
print "2"
@case(3)
def _():
print "3"
@case(5)
@case(6)
def _():
print '5 and 6'
@case.default
def _():
print 'default'
I'll toss in the (moderately) hacked stack, abused decorators and questionable context manager for free. It's ugly but functional (and not in the good way). Essentially, all it does is wrap the dictionary logic up in an ugly wrapper.
import inspect
class switch(object):
def __init__(self, var):
self.cases = {}
self.var = var
def __enter__(self):
def case(value):
def decorator(f):
if value not in self.cases:
self.cases[value] = f
return f
return decorator
def default(f):
self.default = f
return f
case.default = default
f_locals = inspect.currentframe().f_back.f_locals
self.f_locals = f_locals.copy()
f_locals['case'] = case
def __exit__(self, *args, **kwargs):
new_locals = inspect.currentframe().f_back.f_locals
new_items = [key for key in new_locals if key not in self.f_locals]
for key in new_items:
del new_locals[key] # clean up
new_locals.update(self.f_locals) # this reverts all variables to their
try: # previous values
self.cases[self.var]()
except KeyError:
try:
getattr(self, 'default')()
except AttributeError:
pass
Note that the hacked stack isn't actually necessary. We just use it to create a scope so that definitions that occur in the switch statement don't leak out into the enclosing scope and to get case
into the namespace. If you don't mind leaks, (loops leak for instance), then you can remove the stack hack and return the case
decorator from __enter__
, using the as
clause on the with statement to receive it in the enclosing scope.
You could hide the evaluation inside a lambda:
message = { 'create': lambda: msg(some_data),
'update': lambda: msg(other_data),
}
return message[type]()
As long as the names are all defined (so you don’t get a NameError
), you could also structure it like this:
message = { 'create': (msg, some_data),
'update': (other_func, other_data),
}
func, arg = message[type]
return func(arg)
You can delay execution of the match using lambda
:
return {
'create': lambda: msg(some_data),
'update': lambda: msg(other_data),
# ...
}[type]()
If all the cases are just calling msg
with different arguments, you can simplify this to:
return msg({
'create': some_data,
'update': other_data,
# ...
}[type])