Is it possible to create a class of integer where an instance of a certain class (say AutomaticCounter) will increase itself by some number (say 1) each time it is called?
>>> n = AutomaticCounter(start=0)
>>> print(n)
1
>>> print(n)
2
This is what I have tried so far:
class AutomaticCounter(int):
def __init__(self):
self = 0
def __str__(self):
self = self + 1
return self
If you really, really, really need to mangle an immutable and built-in type, then you can create a kind-of "pointer" to it:
class AutomaticCounter(int):
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
# create a new instance of int()
self = super().__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
# create a member "ptr" and storing a ref to the instance
self.ptr = self
# return the normal instance
return self
def __str__(self):
# first, create a copy via int()
# which "decays" from your subclass to an ordinary int()
# then stringify it to obtain the normal __str__() value
value = str(int(self.ptr))
# afterwards, store a new instance of your subclass
# that is incremented by 1
self.ptr = AutomaticCounter(self.ptr + 1)
return value
n = AutomaticCounter(0)
print(n) # 0
print(n) # 1
print(n) # 2
# to increment first and print later, use this __str__() instead:
def __str__(self):
self.ptr = AutomaticCounter(self.ptr + 1)
return str(int(self.ptr))
This, however, doesn't make the type immutable per se. If you do print(f"{self=}") at the beginning of __str__() you'll see the instance is unchanged, so you effectively have a size of 2x int() (+ some trash) for your object and you access the real instance via self.ptr.
It wouldn't work with self alone as self is merely a read-only reference (created via __new__()) passed to instance's methods as the first argument, so something like this:
def func(instance, ...):
instance = <something else>
and you doing the assignment would, as mentioned by Daniel, simply assign a new value to the local variable named instance (self is just a quasi-standard name for the reference) which doesn't really change the instance. Therefore the next solution which looks similar would be a pointer and as you'd like to manipulate it the way you described, I "hid" it to a custom member called ptr.
As pointed out by user2357112, there is a desynchronization caused by the instance being immutable, therefore if you choose the self.ptr hack, you'll need to update the magic methods (__*__()), for example this is updating the __add__(). Notice the int() calls, it converts it to int() to prevent recursions.
class AutomaticCounter(int):
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
self = super().__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
self.ptr = self
return self
def __str__(self):
value = int(self.ptr)
self.ptr = AutomaticCounter(int(self.ptr) + 1)
return str(value)
def __add__(self, other):
value = other
if hasattr(other, "ptr"):
value = int(other.ptr)
self.ptr = AutomaticCounter(int(self.ptr) + value)
return int(self.ptr)
def __rmul__(self, other):
# [1, 2, 3] * your_object
return other * int(self.ptr)
n = AutomaticCounter(0)
print(n) # 0
print(n) # 1
print(n) # 2
print(n+n) # 6
However, anything that attempts to pull the raw value or tries to access it with C API will most likely fail, namely reverse operations e.g. with immutable built-ins should be the case as for those you can't edit the magic methods reliably so it's corrected in all modules and all scopes.
Example:
# will work fine because it's your class
a <operator> b -> a.__operator__(b)
vs
# will break everything because it's using the raw value, not self.ptr hack
b <operator> a -> b.__operator__(a)
with exception of list.__mul__() for some reason. When I find the code line in CPython, I'll add it here.
Or, a more sane solution would be to create a custom and mutable object, create a member in it and manipulate that. Then return it, stringified, in __str__:
class AutomaticCounter(int):
def __init__(self, start=0):
self.item = start
def __str__(self):
self.item += 1
return str(self.item)
There are two issues here. First, self isn't actually the object but rather a variable reference to the object. When you reassign self, you're not changing the object but merely causing the self variable, which only has local scope, to now reference some other object. The original object remains unchanged.
Second, unless you really know what you're doing (and I don't), it is, in my opinion, unadvisable to subclass immutable built-ins. What you can do is have the object have an integer attribute and then define the __getattr__ method to pass any attribute calls on to the integer.
class AutomaticCounter:
def __init__(self, start=0):
self.item = start
def __str__(self):
self.item += 1
return str(self.item)
def __getattr__(self, attr):
return getattr(self.item, attr)
Related
I would like to replace an object instance by another instance inside a method like this:
class A:
def method1(self):
self = func(self)
The object is retrieved from a database.
It is unlikely that replacing the 'self' variable will accomplish whatever you're trying to do, that couldn't just be accomplished by storing the result of func(self) in a different variable. 'self' is effectively a local variable only defined for the duration of the method call, used to pass in the instance of the class which is being operated upon. Replacing self will not actually replace references to the original instance of the class held by other objects, nor will it create a lasting reference to the new instance which was assigned to it.
As far as I understand, If you are trying to replace the current object with another object of same type (assuming func won't change the object type) from an member function. I think this will achieve that:
class A:
def method1(self):
newObj = func(self)
self.__dict__.update(newObj.__dict__)
It is not a direct answer to the question, but in the posts below there's a solution for what amirouche tried to do:
Python object conversion
Can I dynamically convert an instance of one class to another?
And here's working code sample (Python 3.2.5).
class Men:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def who_are_you(self):
print("I'm a men! My name is " + self.name)
def cast_to(self, sex, name):
self.__class__ = sex
self.name = name
def method_unique_to_men(self):
print('I made The Matrix')
class Women:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def who_are_you(self):
print("I'm a women! My name is " + self.name)
def cast_to(self, sex, name):
self.__class__ = sex
self.name = name
def method_unique_to_women(self):
print('I made Cloud Atlas')
men = Men('Larry')
men.who_are_you()
#>>> I'm a men! My name is Larry
men.method_unique_to_men()
#>>> I made The Matrix
men.cast_to(Women, 'Lana')
men.who_are_you()
#>>> I'm a women! My name is Lana
men.method_unique_to_women()
#>>> I made Cloud Atlas
Note the self.__class__ and not self.__class__.__name__. I.e. this technique not only replaces class name, but actually converts an instance of a class (at least both of them have same id()). Also, 1) I don't know whether it is "safe to replace a self object by another object of the same type in [an object own] method"; 2) it works with different types of objects, not only with ones that are of the same type; 3) it works not exactly like amirouche wanted: you can't init class like Class(args), only Class() (I'm not a pro and can't answer why it's like this).
Yes, all that will happen is that you won't be able to reference the current instance of your class A (unless you set another variable to self before you change it.) I wouldn't recommend it though, it makes for less readable code.
Note that you're only changing a variable, just like any other. Doing self = 123 is the same as doing abc = 123. self is only a reference to the current instance within the method. You can't change your instance by setting self.
What func(self) should do is to change the variables of your instance:
def func(obj):
obj.var_a = 123
obj.var_b = 'abc'
Then do this:
class A:
def method1(self):
func(self) # No need to assign self here
In many cases, a good way to achieve what you want is to call __init__ again. For example:
class MyList(list):
def trim(self,n):
self.__init__(self[:-n])
x = MyList([1,2,3,4])
x.trim(2)
assert type(x) == MyList
assert x == [1,2]
Note that this comes with a few assumptions such as the all that you want to change about the object being set in __init__. Also beware that this could cause problems with inheriting classes that redefine __init__ in an incompatible manner.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with this. Haters gonna hate. (Looking at you Pycharm with your in most cases imaginable, there's no point in such reassignment and it indicates an error).
A situation where you could do this is:
some_method(self, ...):
...
if(some_condition):
self = self.some_other_method()
...
return ...
Sure, you could start the method body by reassigning self to some other variable, but if you wouldn't normally do that with other parametres, why do it with self?
One can use the self assignment in a method, to change the class of instance to a derived class.
Of course one could assign it to a new object, but then the use of the new object ripples through the rest of code in the method. Reassiging it to self, leaves the rest of the method untouched.
class aclass:
def methodA(self):
...
if condition:
self = replace_by_derived(self)
# self is now referencing to an instance of a derived class
# with probably the same values for its data attributes
# all code here remains untouched
...
self.methodB() # calls the methodB of derivedclass is condition is True
...
def methodB(self):
# methodB of class aclass
...
class derivedclass(aclass):
def methodB(self):
#methodB of class derivedclass
...
But apart from such a special use case, I don't see any advantages to replace self.
You can make the instance a singleton element of the class
and mark the methods with #classmethod.
from enum import IntEnum
from collections import namedtuple
class kind(IntEnum):
circle = 1
square = 2
def attr(y): return [getattr(y, x) for x in 'k l b u r'.split()]
class Shape(namedtuple('Shape', 'k,l,b,u,r')):
self = None
#classmethod
def __repr__(cls):
return "<Shape({},{},{},{},{}) object at {}>".format(
*(attr(cls.self)+[id(cls.self)]))
#classmethod
def transform(cls, func):
cls.self = cls.self._replace(**func(cls.self))
Shape.self = Shape(k=1, l=2, b=3, u=4, r=5)
s = Shape.self
def nextkind(self):
return {'k': self.k+1}
print(repr(s)) # <Shape(1,2,3,4,5) object at 139766656561792>
s.transform(nextkind)
print(repr(s)) # <Shape(2,2,3,4,5) object at 139766656561888>
I have the following class:
class temp_con():
def __init__(self):
self.t = 0
#property
def t(self):
return self.t
#t.setter
def t(self,value):
self.t = value
I need to use it to compare against a number following this logic:
if num <= temp_con.t - 2:
#dothing
However i get the error:
Type error: unsupported operand type for -: 'property' and 'int'<
I have tried int(temp_con.t) and getattr(temp_con, t) but those did not work.
How can I utilize the property as an int?
You need to use separate names for the property and the attribute it wraps. A good convention is to use the property name prefixed with a _ as the attribute name.
class TempCon:
def __init__(self):
self._t = 0
#property
def t(self):
return self._t
#t.setter
def t(self, value):
self._t = value
Then you can access the property on an instance of the class.
temp_con = TempCon()
print(temp_con.t)
temp_con.t = 5
print(temp_con.t)
You're accessing t on CLASS, not on an OBJECT of CLASS.
Try:
q = temp_con()
if num <= q.t - 2:
pass
In you code temp_con.t returns property object, which wraps getter (and setter) you've defined in your class code, but it doesnt execute it.
UPDATE: (memo: read twice)
There's also another problem with your code. First (well, it's second in code, but it will happen first) you define getter t, then later you OVERWRITE it with self.t = 0. As a result you'll get (as t) property accessible as a class member (which happens in your example) and value 0 as object's member.
You need an instance of the class in order to use the property and, as pointed out in other answers, you need to use a different name for your object variable. Try:
class temp_con():
def __init__(self):
self._t = 0
#property
def t(self):
return self._t
#t.setter
def t(self,value):
self._t = value
my_temp_con = temp_con()
if num <= my_temp_con.t - 2:
pass
Thus, to access the value of the property and not the property function, you have to access it through my_temp_con.t.
Assume I were given the following class:
class foo(object):
def __init__(self, int):
self.count = int
def increment(self, int):
return foo(int + 1)
def decrement(self, int):
return foo(int - 1)
My goal is to chain together function calls to reach the result I want without having to assign each object to a variable. For instance, I know I can do this:
obj = foo(0)
obj = obj.increment(obj.count)
obj = obj.decrement(obj.count)
obj = obj.increment(obj.count)
obj = obj.decrement(obj.count)
print obj.count
0
but I would like to be able to do this:
finalcount = obj(0).increment(?.count).decrement(?.count)
but I don't know if there is something that I can put in place of ? to refer to the object who's method is being called since that object hasn't been assigned a name.
Your object doesn't really contribute anything in your current code. Note how the methods in your class don't refer to any object state — they never use self. Better would be to omit the int parameter entirely, and use self.count instead:
class foo(object):
def __init__(self, int):
self.count = int
def increment(self):
return foo(self.count + 1)
def decrement(self):
return foo(self.count - 1)
Then, what you wanted to write becomes this:
finalcount = foo(0).increment().decrement()
But, to answer your original question, there is no way to refer to the "current" object in the chain of calls. If you want to refer to an intermediate object, you must assign it to a variable.
I'm trying to define a class Hlist of linked lists as below:
class Hlist:
def __init__(self, value, hlnext):
self.value = value
self.hlnext = hlnext
def pop(self):
res = self.value
if not(self.hlnext == None):
self = self.hlnext
return res
def __repr__(self):
return (str(self.value) + ' - ' + str(self.hlnext))
When I test the pop() method on
a = Hlist(1, Hlist(2, None))
Python returns 1 - 2 - None, ok. Then
a.pop()
returns 1, fine. However :
print(a)
returns 1 - 2 - None. The list hasn't been modified despite
self = self.hlnext
Is self the pointer a or is it another pointer pointing to the same address as a?
And why does the following code return the expected answer for pop():
class Hlist:
def __init__(self, value, hlnext):
self.value = value
self.hlnext = hlnext
def pop(self):
res = self.value
if not(self.hlnext == None):
self.value = self.hlnext.value
self.next = self.hlnext.hlnext
return res
def __repr__(self):
return (str(self.value) + ' - ' + str(self.hlnext))
is it due to the setattr function used by python?
Actually i was trying to get the equivalent in Python of the following class in Java :
class Hlist{
int value;
Hlist hlnext;
Hlist(int value,Hlist hlnext){
value = value;
hlnext = hlnext;
}
}
and add a pop() method to it. In a pop() method, will Java's this work the same way Python's self does (local variable) or will it be binded to the pointer a I called pop()? In that case, will this = this.hlnext change the a pointer or not?
Because self isn't working the way you think it is. self is just another local variable: assigning to it inside pop() won't change the object into another thing. See this question for more details.
It's moslty because you can't change self directly.
If you think about pointers, you can't change the pointer address, except if you use a pointer on this pointer. Here, if you consider self as a pointer, when you assign another value to self, you don't really change the self pointer.
See this answer
The second code "works" (not in all cases), because you aren't changing self itself, but the references on which it's pointing. Then your instance is updated to remove its old value and update itself with the next value.
I don't know if this will make sense, but...
I'm trying to dynamically assign methods to an object.
#translate this
object.key(value)
#into this
object.method({key:value})
To be more specific in my example, I have an object (which I didn't write), lets call it motor, which has some generic methods set, status and a few others. Some take a dictionary as an argument and some take a list. To change the motor's speed, and see the result, I use:
motor.set({'move_at':10})
print motor.status('velocity')
The motor object, then formats this request into a JSON-RPC string, and sends it to an IO daemon. The python motor object doesn't care what the arguments are, it just handles JSON formatting and sockets. The strings move_at and velocity are just two of what might be hundreds of valid arguments.
What I'd like to do is the following instead:
motor.move_at(10)
print motor.velocity()
I'd like to do it in a generic way since I have so many different arguments I can pass. What I don't want to do is this:
# create a new function for every possible argument
def move_at(self,x)
return self.set({'move_at':x})
def velocity(self)
return self.status('velocity')
#and a hundred more...
I did some searching on this which suggested the solution lies with lambdas and meta programming, two subjects I haven't been able to get my head around.
UPDATE:
Based on the code from user470379 I've come up with the following...
# This is what I have now....
class Motor(object):
def set(self,a_dict):
print "Setting a value", a_dict
def status(self,a_list):
print "requesting the status of", a_list
return 10
# Now to extend it....
class MyMotor(Motor):
def __getattr__(self,name):
def special_fn(*value):
# What we return depends on how many arguments there are.
if len(value) == 0: return self.status((name))
if len(value) == 1: return self.set({name:value[0]})
return special_fn
def __setattr__(self,attr,value): # This is based on some other answers
self.set({attr:value})
x = MyMotor()
x.move_at = 20 # Uses __setattr__
x.move_at(10) # May remove this style from __getattr__ to simplify code.
print x.velocity()
output:
Setting a value {'move_at': 20}
Setting a value {'move_at': 10}
10
Thank you to everyone who helped!
What about creating your own __getattr__ for the class that returns a function created on the fly? IIRC, there's some tricky cases to watch out for between __getattr__ and __getattribute__ that I don't recall off the top of my head, I'm sure someone will post a comment to remind me:
def __getattr__(self, name):
def set_fn(self, value):
return self.set({name:value})
return set_fn
Then what should happen is that calling an attribute that doesn't exist (ie: move_at) will call the __getattr__ function and create a new function that will be returned (set_fn above). The name variable of that function will be bound to the name parameter passed into __getattr__ ("move_at" in this case). Then that new function will be called with the arguments you passed (10 in this case).
Edit
A more concise version using lambdas (untested):
def __getattr__(self, name):
return lambda value: self.set({name:value})
There are a lot of different potential answers to this, but many of them will probably involve subclassing the object and/or writing or overriding the __getattr__ function.
Essentially, the __getattr__ function is called whenever python can't find an attribute in the usual way.
Assuming you can subclass your object, here's a simple example of what you might do (it's a bit clumsy but it's a start):
class foo(object):
def __init__(self):
print "initting " + repr(self)
self.a = 5
def meth(self):
print self.a
class newfoo(foo):
def __init__(self):
super(newfoo, self).__init__()
def meth2(): # Or, use a lambda: ...
print "meth2: " + str(self.a) # but you don't have to
self.methdict = { "meth2":meth2 }
def __getattr__(self, name):
return self.methdict[name]
f = foo()
g = newfoo()
f.meth()
g.meth()
g.meth2()
Output:
initting <__main__.foo object at 0xb7701e4c>
initting <__main__.newfoo object at 0xb7701e8c>
5
5
meth2: 5
You seem to have certain "properties" of your object that can be set by
obj.set({"name": value})
and queried by
obj.status("name")
A common way to go in Python is to map this behaviour to what looks like simple attribute access. So we write
obj.name = value
to set the property, and we simply use
obj.name
to query it. This can easily be implemented using the __getattr__() and __setattr__() special methods:
class MyMotor(Motor):
def __init__(self, *args, **kw):
self._init_flag = True
Motor.__init__(self, *args, **kw)
self._init_flag = False
def __getattr__(self, name):
return self.status(name)
def __setattr__(self, name, value):
if self._init_flag or hasattr(self, name):
return Motor.__setattr__(self, name, value)
return self.set({name: value})
Note that this code disallows the dynamic creation of new "real" attributes of Motor instances after the initialisation. If this is needed, corresponding exceptions could be added to the __setattr__() implementation.
Instead of setting with function-call syntax, consider using assignment (with =). Similarly, just use attribute syntax to get a value, instead of function-call syntax. Then you can use __getattr__ and __setattr__:
class OtherType(object): # this is the one you didn't write
# dummy implementations for the example:
def set(self, D):
print "setting", D
def status(self, key):
return "<value of %s>" % key
class Blah(object):
def __init__(self, parent):
object.__setattr__(self, "_parent", parent)
def __getattr__(self, attr):
return self._parent.status(attr)
def __setattr__(self, attr, value):
self._parent.set({attr: value})
obj = Blah(OtherType())
obj.velocity = 42 # prints setting {'velocity': 42}
print obj.velocity # prints <value of velocity>