I'm wanting to keep a class attribute on a base class which keeps track of all names of all its subclasses.
class SomeThing(abc.ABC):
subclass_names = set()
def __init_subclass__(cls):
cls.subclass_names.add(cls.__name__)
print(cls.subclass_names)
However, I'm afraid that because I'm creating an abstract class, users might overwrite the class attribute I am keeping.
class SomeSub(SomeThing):
subclass_names = set()
out: {'SomeSub'}
class SomeOtherSub(SomeThing):
pass
out: {'SomeOtherThing'} # should be {'SomeSub', 'SomeOtherThing'}
# but SomeOtherThing is registered in SomeOtherThing's, not SomeThing's subclass_names
Is there a way to refer to "own class" in a class method? It seems like the cls in __init_subclass__ ends up being whichever subclass is passed in (which makes sense).
Take advantage of name mangling:
class SomeThing(abc.ABC):
__subclass_names = set()
def __init_subclass__(cls):
cls.__subclass_names.add(cls.__name__)
print(cls.__subclass_names)
As the docs say:
Since there is a valid use-case for class-private members (namely to avoid name clashes of names with names defined by subclasses), there is limited support for such a mechanism, called name mangling. Any identifier of the form __spam (at least two leading underscores, at most one trailing underscore) is textually replaced with _classname__spam, where classname is the current class name with leading underscore(s) stripped.
This means that subclasses of SomeThing won't accidentally override __subclass_names, since they will actually have to override _SomeThing__subclass_names instead.
Use a double-underscore to designate an attribute as private to a particular class. Python will "name-mangle" it behind the scenes to ensure that child classes can't accidentally override it.
import abc
class SomeThing(abc.ABC):
__subclass_names = set()
def __init_subclass__(cls):
SomeThing.__subclass_names.add(cls.__name__)
print(SomeThing.__subclass_names)
class SomeSub(SomeThing):
__subclass_names = set()
# {'SomeSub'}
class SomeOtherThing(SomeThing):
pass
# {'SomeOtherSub', 'SomeSub'}
Related
Is it possible to get the the namespace parent, or encapsulating type, of a class?
class base:
class sub:
def __init__(self):
# self is "__main__.extra.sub"
# want to create object of type "__main__.extra" from this
pass
class extra(base):
class sub(base.sub):
pass
o = extra.sub()
The problem in base.sub.__init__ is getting extra from the extra.sub.
The only solutions I can think of at the moment involve having all subclasses of base provide some link to their encapsulating class type or turning the type of self in base.sub.__init__ into a string an manipulating it into a new type string. Both a bit ughly.
It's clearly possible to go the other way, type(self()).sub would give you extra.sub from inside base.sub.__init__ for a extra type object, but how do I do .. instead of .sub ? :)
The real answer is that there is no general way to do this. Python classes are normal objects, but they are created a bit differently. A class does not exist until well after its entire body has been executed. Once a class is created, it can be bound to many different names. The only reference it has to where it was created are the __module__ and __qualname__ attributes, but both of these are mutable.
In practice, it is possible to write your example like this:
class Sub:
def __init__(self):
pass
class Base:
Sub = Sub
Sub.__qualname__ = 'Base.Sub'
class Sub(Sub):
pass
class Extra(Base):
Sub = Sub
Sub.__qualname__ = 'Extra.Sub'
del Sub # Unlink from global namespace
Barring the capitalization, this behaves exactly as your original example. Hopefully this clarifies which code has access to what, and shows that the most robust way to determine the enclosing scope of a class is to explicitly assign it somewhere. You can do this in any number of ways. The trivial way is just to assign it. Going back to your original notation:
class Base:
class Sub:
def __init__(self):
print(self.enclosing)
Base.Sub.enclosing = Base
class Extra(Base):
class Sub(Base.Sub):
pass
Extra.Sub.enclosing = Extra
Notice that since Base does not exist when it body is being executed, the assignment has to happen after the classes are both created. You can bypass this by using a metaclass or a decorator. That will allow you to mess with the namespace before the class object is assigned to a name, making the change more transparent.
class NestedMeta(type):
def __init__(cls, name, bases, namespace):
for name, obj in namespace.items():
if isinstance(obj, type):
obj.enclosing = cls
class Base(metaclass=NestedMeta):
class Sub:
def __init__(self):
print(self.enclosing)
class Extra(Base):
class Sub(Base.Sub):
pass
But this is again somewhat unreliable because not all metaclasses are an instance of type, which takes us back to the first statement in this answer.
In many cases, you can use the __qualname__ and __module__ attributes to get the name of the surrounding class:
import sys
cls = type(o)
getattr(sys.modules[cls.__module__], '.'.join(cls.__qualname__.split('.')[:-1]))
This is a very literal answer to your question. It just shows one way of getting the class in the enclosing scope without addressing the probably design flaws that lead to this being necessary in the first place, or any of the many possible corner cases that this would not cover.
I know, there are no 'real' private/protected methods in Python. This approach isn't meant to hide anything; I just want to understand what Python does.
class Parent(object):
def _protected(self):
pass
def __private(self):
pass
class Child(Parent):
def foo(self):
self._protected() # This works
def bar(self):
self.__private() # This doesn't work, I get a AttributeError:
# 'Child' object has no attribute '_Child__private'
So, does this behaviour mean, that 'protected' methods will be inherited but 'private' won't at all?
Or did I miss anything?
Python has no privacy model, there are no access modifiers like in C++, C# or Java. There are no truly 'protected' or 'private' attributes.
Names with a leading double underscore and no trailing double underscore are mangled to protect them from clashes when inherited. Subclasses can define their own __private() method and these will not interfere with the same name on the parent class. Such names are considered class private; they are still accessible from outside the class but are far less likely to accidentally clash.
Mangling is done by prepending any such name with an extra underscore and the class name (regardless of how the name is used or if it exists), effectively giving them a namespace. In the Parent class, any __private identifier is replaced (at compilation time) by the name _Parent__private, while in the Child class the identifier is replaced by _Child__private, everywhere in the class definition.
The following will work:
class Child(Parent):
def foo(self):
self._protected()
def bar(self):
self._Parent__private()
See Reserved classes of identifiers in the lexical analysis documentation:
__*
Class-private names. Names in this category, when used within the context of a class definition, are re-written to use a mangled form to help avoid name clashes between “private” attributes of base and derived classes.
and the referenced documentation on names:
Private name mangling: When an identifier that textually occurs in a class definition begins with two or more underscore characters and does not end in two or more underscores, it is considered a private name of that class. Private names are transformed to a longer form before code is generated for them. The transformation inserts the class name, with leading underscores removed and a single underscore inserted, in front of the name. For example, the identifier __spam occurring in a class named Ham will be transformed to _Ham__spam. This transformation is independent of the syntactical context in which the identifier is used.
Don't use class-private names unless you specifically want to avoid having to tell developers that want to subclass your class that they can't use certain names or risk breaking your class. Outside of published frameworks and libraries, there is little use for this feature.
The PEP 8 Python Style Guide has this to say about private name mangling:
If your class is intended to be subclassed, and you have attributes
that you do not want subclasses to use, consider naming them with
double leading underscores and no trailing underscores. This invokes
Python's name mangling algorithm, where the name of the class is
mangled into the attribute name. This helps avoid attribute name
collisions should subclasses inadvertently contain attributes with the
same name.
Note 1: Note that only the simple class name is used in the mangled
name, so if a subclass chooses both the same class name and attribute
name, you can still get name collisions.
Note 2: Name mangling can make certain uses, such as debugging and
__getattr__(), less convenient. However the name mangling algorithm
is well documented and easy to perform manually.
Note 3: Not everyone likes name mangling. Try to balance the need to
avoid accidental name clashes with potential use by advanced callers.
The double __ attribute is changed to _ClassName__method_name which makes it more private than the semantic privacy implied by _method_name.
You can technically still get at it if you'd really like to, but presumably no one is going to do that, so for maintenance of code abstraction reasons, the method might as well be private at that point.
class Parent(object):
def _protected(self):
pass
def __private(self):
print("Is it really private?")
class Child(Parent):
def foo(self):
self._protected()
def bar(self):
self.__private()
c = Child()
c._Parent__private()
This has the additional upside (or some would say primary upside) of allowing a method to not collide with child class method names.
By declaring your data member private :
__private()
you simply can't access it from outside the class
Python supports a technique called name mangling.
This feature turns class member prefixed with two underscores into:
_className.memberName
if you want to access it from Child() you can use: self._Parent__private()
Also PEP8 says
Use one leading underscore only for non-public methods and instance
variables.
To avoid name clashes with subclasses, use two leading underscores to
invoke Python's name mangling rules.
Python mangles these names with the class name: if class Foo has an
attribute named __a, it cannot be accessed by Foo.__a. (An insistent
user could still gain access by calling Foo._Foo__a.) Generally,
double leading underscores should be used only to avoid name conflicts
with attributes in classes designed to be subclassed.
You should stay away from _such_methods too, by convention. I mean you should treat them as private
Although this is an old question, I encountered it and found a nice workaround.
In the case you name mangled on the parent class because you wanted to mimic a protected function, but still wanted to access the function in an easy manner on the child class.
parent_class_private_func_list = [func for func in dir(Child) if func.startswith ('_Parent__')]
for parent_private_func in parent_class_private_func_list:
setattr(self, parent_private_func.replace("_Parent__", "_Child"), getattr(self, parent_private_func))
The idea is manually replacing the parents function name into one fitting to the current namespace.
After adding this in the init function of the child class, you can call the function in an easy manner.
self.__private()
AFAIK, in the second case Python perform "name mangling", so the name of the __private method of the parent class is really:
_Parent__private
And you cannot use it in child in this form neither
I know, there are no 'real' private/protected methods in Python. This approach isn't meant to hide anything; I just want to understand what Python does.
class Parent(object):
def _protected(self):
pass
def __private(self):
pass
class Child(Parent):
def foo(self):
self._protected() # This works
def bar(self):
self.__private() # This doesn't work, I get a AttributeError:
# 'Child' object has no attribute '_Child__private'
So, does this behaviour mean, that 'protected' methods will be inherited but 'private' won't at all?
Or did I miss anything?
Python has no privacy model, there are no access modifiers like in C++, C# or Java. There are no truly 'protected' or 'private' attributes.
Names with a leading double underscore and no trailing double underscore are mangled to protect them from clashes when inherited. Subclasses can define their own __private() method and these will not interfere with the same name on the parent class. Such names are considered class private; they are still accessible from outside the class but are far less likely to accidentally clash.
Mangling is done by prepending any such name with an extra underscore and the class name (regardless of how the name is used or if it exists), effectively giving them a namespace. In the Parent class, any __private identifier is replaced (at compilation time) by the name _Parent__private, while in the Child class the identifier is replaced by _Child__private, everywhere in the class definition.
The following will work:
class Child(Parent):
def foo(self):
self._protected()
def bar(self):
self._Parent__private()
See Reserved classes of identifiers in the lexical analysis documentation:
__*
Class-private names. Names in this category, when used within the context of a class definition, are re-written to use a mangled form to help avoid name clashes between “private” attributes of base and derived classes.
and the referenced documentation on names:
Private name mangling: When an identifier that textually occurs in a class definition begins with two or more underscore characters and does not end in two or more underscores, it is considered a private name of that class. Private names are transformed to a longer form before code is generated for them. The transformation inserts the class name, with leading underscores removed and a single underscore inserted, in front of the name. For example, the identifier __spam occurring in a class named Ham will be transformed to _Ham__spam. This transformation is independent of the syntactical context in which the identifier is used.
Don't use class-private names unless you specifically want to avoid having to tell developers that want to subclass your class that they can't use certain names or risk breaking your class. Outside of published frameworks and libraries, there is little use for this feature.
The PEP 8 Python Style Guide has this to say about private name mangling:
If your class is intended to be subclassed, and you have attributes
that you do not want subclasses to use, consider naming them with
double leading underscores and no trailing underscores. This invokes
Python's name mangling algorithm, where the name of the class is
mangled into the attribute name. This helps avoid attribute name
collisions should subclasses inadvertently contain attributes with the
same name.
Note 1: Note that only the simple class name is used in the mangled
name, so if a subclass chooses both the same class name and attribute
name, you can still get name collisions.
Note 2: Name mangling can make certain uses, such as debugging and
__getattr__(), less convenient. However the name mangling algorithm
is well documented and easy to perform manually.
Note 3: Not everyone likes name mangling. Try to balance the need to
avoid accidental name clashes with potential use by advanced callers.
The double __ attribute is changed to _ClassName__method_name which makes it more private than the semantic privacy implied by _method_name.
You can technically still get at it if you'd really like to, but presumably no one is going to do that, so for maintenance of code abstraction reasons, the method might as well be private at that point.
class Parent(object):
def _protected(self):
pass
def __private(self):
print("Is it really private?")
class Child(Parent):
def foo(self):
self._protected()
def bar(self):
self.__private()
c = Child()
c._Parent__private()
This has the additional upside (or some would say primary upside) of allowing a method to not collide with child class method names.
By declaring your data member private :
__private()
you simply can't access it from outside the class
Python supports a technique called name mangling.
This feature turns class member prefixed with two underscores into:
_className.memberName
if you want to access it from Child() you can use: self._Parent__private()
Also PEP8 says
Use one leading underscore only for non-public methods and instance
variables.
To avoid name clashes with subclasses, use two leading underscores to
invoke Python's name mangling rules.
Python mangles these names with the class name: if class Foo has an
attribute named __a, it cannot be accessed by Foo.__a. (An insistent
user could still gain access by calling Foo._Foo__a.) Generally,
double leading underscores should be used only to avoid name conflicts
with attributes in classes designed to be subclassed.
You should stay away from _such_methods too, by convention. I mean you should treat them as private
Although this is an old question, I encountered it and found a nice workaround.
In the case you name mangled on the parent class because you wanted to mimic a protected function, but still wanted to access the function in an easy manner on the child class.
parent_class_private_func_list = [func for func in dir(Child) if func.startswith ('_Parent__')]
for parent_private_func in parent_class_private_func_list:
setattr(self, parent_private_func.replace("_Parent__", "_Child"), getattr(self, parent_private_func))
The idea is manually replacing the parents function name into one fitting to the current namespace.
After adding this in the init function of the child class, you can call the function in an easy manner.
self.__private()
AFAIK, in the second case Python perform "name mangling", so the name of the __private method of the parent class is really:
_Parent__private
And you cannot use it in child in this form neither
What is the naming convention for a variable referencing a class in Python?
class MyClass(object):
pass
# which one is correct?
reference_to_class = MyClass
# or
ReferenceToClass = MyClass
Here is another example that resembles my situation:
# cars.py
class Car(object):
pass
class Sedan(Car):
pass
class Coupe(Car):
pass
class StatonWagon(Car):
pass
class Van(Car):
pass
def get_car_class(slug, config):
return config.get(slug)
# config.py
CONFIG = {
'ford-mustang': Coupe,
'buick-riviera': Coupe,
'chevrolet-caprice': Sedan,
'chevy-wan' Van:
'ford-econoline': Van
}
# main.py
from config.py import CONFIG
from cars import get_car_class
MyCarClass = get_car_class('buick-riviera')
my_car = MyCarClass()
I would prefer ReferenceToClass, that everybody new to the code knows it's a class and not an instance. But as poplitea wrote, literature reference would be great.
On module level the second:
ReferenceToClass = MyClass
As a function argument, the first:
reference_to_class = MyClass
tl;dr: for global/public names use AllCaps like XORcist said:
class Logger:
pass
AliasLogger = Logger
For function parameters and function locals, make it clear that you are dealing with the class object with a descriptive name like this:
def some_func(logger_class):
pass
or something along the lines
def some_func(my_class_classobj):
pass
when the word "class" is actually in your classname. For classobj, see also class_ and klass.
Analysis/Motivation (long version)
No thorough reading, but at a glance PEP 8 doesn't seem to be explicit on this (neither google's python style guide for that matter).
Since a variable name is probably just yet-another name binding in python, in my opinion it doesn't really matter whether you bind that name with the definition block or later with the = equal sign to some object.
For this I agree with XORcist in that module level "alias" references should adhere to your class naming standard, probably AllCaps:
class MyClass(object):
pass
# good
ReferenceToClass = MyClass
However when it comes to parameter and variable names, supposedly lowercase_underscores should apply, right? I'm unhappy with only that, since it will push you into the instance vs class reference ambiguity. There is the potential that an all-lowercase name may be an attempt to hint the object being an instance. For that matter, I recommend postfixing your all-lowercase, class-referencing variable names with the "class" suffix, like this:
class Logger(object):
pass
def function_expecting_class_reference(logger_class):
pass
I renamed your example class MyClass to Logger because in real scenarios only a few class name contains the string "class". However in that latter case I propose to avoid the ambiguity with descriptive naming yet again. For example, you may use a classobj suffix:
class MyClass(object):
pass
def function_expecting_class_reference(another_param, my_class_classobj):
ReferenceToClass = MyClass
Another alternative I tend to take is to use the suffix klass, like my_class_klass. Not everyone seems to get the latter, but anyway I'm yet to test whether they would get the former any better.
I treat it the same as an instance variable, which PEP8 defines as using lowercase_underscore_style. (lowercase, with words separated by underscores as necessary to improve readability.)
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#id34
I want to call a redefined private method from an abstract parent class. I am using django if that matters.
class Parent(models.Model):
def method1(self):
#do somthing
self.__method2()
def method2(self):
pass # I also tried calling up a prent method with super
class child(Parent):
def method1(self)
super(Child, self).method1()
def __method2(self):
#do something
I get a
AttributeError: "'Chil' object has no attribute '_Parent__method2'"
What I am doing wrong ?
Initial double underscores prevent polymorphism since both the method definition and the method call get mangled, to two different names. Replace with a single underscore to fix this.
Also, double underscores are not used for "private" attributes, and you should discard whatever reference told you that they are. They're used for MI disambiguation.