Implement linescan.rescan()

[le717]

It took some work, but I have finally implemented linescan.rescan() from #2.

[le717]

Hey, @tribex, if you are not too busy, would you take a look at this? It looks and acts correctly to me (and I have tested many use cases), but it never hurts to have a second opinion. If you can't, that's fine too. Just unsubscribe from the notifications. 😉

[JoshTheDerf]

Sure! starts typing

I'm not entirely sure what the correct behavior should be, but it seems to be working so far... My Python skills have gotten a bit rusty... (Currently working with HTML5 on Andriod) :L

What do you mean by this?

Just unsubscribed from the notifications. 😉

testfile.txt is almost creepy...

EDIT: More complete review,

As far as I can tell, it works fine. However, it is a bit confusing to tell what is actually going on behind-the-scenes. There can only be one linescan per script correct? Is there a way you could convert it to an instance-able class? Or is that intentional?

I honestly don't see why this is easier to use than the normal way, but I may just be missing something.

[le717]

@tribex Try this:

import linescan

one = linescan.scan("examples/testfile.txt", 1)
two = linescan.scan("examples/testfile.txt", 1, 3)
end = linescan.scan("examples/testfile.txt", 1, "end")

print(one)
print(two)
print(end)

one = linescan.scan("examples/testfile.txt", 12)
print(one)
print(two)

This shows there can be more than one instance. Before the current revision (there were two other implementations before the current one), performing multiple scans overwrote the last one.
I have changed testfile.txt's content. 😉

rescan() allows you to update previously scanned files. Example, if line 1 of testfile.txtchanged between the two readings (after print but before reassignment to line 12), recalling it would report the old data. Running rescan("examples/testfile.txt"), then, would update the dictionary.

I gave some details as to why I wrote this in http://wp.me/p1V5ge-1nO (or can you not access my blog?).

[le717]

@tribex BTW, here is the documentation on rescan().

rescan() allows you to update previously scanned files. Example, if line 1 of testfile.txt changed between the two readings (after print but before reassignment to line 12), recalling it would report the old data. Running rescan("examples/testfile.txt"), then, would update the dictionary.

I just realized I might want to add optional lineno and endline parameters for fine-tuned rescanning. Right now, it rescans all previous scans for filename.

What do you mean by this?
"Just unsubscribed from the notifications. 😉"

Typo. If you did not want to look at it, click the "Unsubscribe" near the top right of the issue to stop receiving notifications for this pull request.

[JoshTheDerf]

Ah, I see now, although it seems like an odd way to instance things. Why the ten line/scan limit?

And yes, I can't access your blog. 😦

[le717]

Copy of blog post with rough formatting: https://gist.github.com/le717/b43b023f9a6234016682

linecache also uses a dictionary for instancing, and recall this is inspired by linecache (I wish I could think this is an improved version of linecache save the imported modules searching part :P).

It was an arbitrary number I "deducted". It can be changing using debug(), but I could change the default value.

[JoshTheDerf]

Ah, thanks, that makes a bit more sense. Looking good. :D

[le717]

Thanks for looking it over. :)

Last questions: 1. Should I raise the limit from 10 to say, 20? 2. Should I consider adding optional lineno and endline parameters for finer control?

I'll go ahead and merge this and make any other changes after you reply. Thanks again. :)

[JoshTheDerf]

No problem! Glad to be of service!

Maybe you should add an optional parameter for the limit or something. I personally think that more parameters are better, but it might go against the idea of being simple and easy-to-use, your call. 😀

[le717]

Maybe you should add an optional parameter for the limit or something.

I did that in the initial version. See debug(). 😉

Again, thanks for the review. 😄