We Keep Coding

How to create an inline function that modifies a variable in Python?

Suppose I have a class that looks like this:
class Foo:
def __init__(self, method):
self.method = method
def do_action(self):
self.method()
and I want to instantiate it as follows:
some_var = False
def bar():
# Modifies existing variable's value
global some_var
some_var = True
foo = Foo(bar)
how do I do that without having to define the bar() method?
I've tried the following and it doesn't work.
foo = Foo(lambda: (some_var := True))
When I do this the IDE tells me there's an identifier expected. Thanks in advance!
EDIT:
Thank you to those who answered, however I didn't really find exactly what I needed. Not sure if it's the best practice, but I ended up using python's exec and it works as intended:
foo = Foo(lambda: exec("some_var = True"))

If the idea is to have bar be able to modify an instance attribute, have bar take the self parameter so do_action can tell it which instance it's operating on. You can't do a variable assignment inside a lambda, so use __setattr__:
class Foo:
def __init__(self, method):
self.method = method
self.some_var = False
def do_action(self):
self.method(self)
foo = Foo(lambda self: self.__setattr__("some_var", True))
foo.do_action()
print(foo.some_var) # True

How to overwrite self after reading yaml? [duplicate]

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>

Python: How to fix, if a static class variable gets a different function reference pointer?

I wonder why my class calls the referenced function (assigned to a static class variable) with with an argument. If I assign the function reference to a normal class variable it works like expected.
Here my example code:
# This function is not editable, because it's imported from an API
def getStuff():
print "I do my stuff!!!"
class foo(object):
GET_STUFF = getStuff
def __init__(self):
print "static var: ",self.GET_STUFF
self.GET_STUFF()
print "outer func: ",getStuff
foo()
This comes up with the following error:
outer func: <function getStuff at 0x0000000003219908>
static var: <bound method foo.getStuff of <__main__.foo object at 0x00000000030AB358>>
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:/example.py", line 13, in <module>
foo()
File "C:/example.py", line 10, in __init__
self.GET_STUFF()
TypeError: getStuff() takes no arguments (1 given)
To fix this issue I point the function reference inside the constructor to the class variable:
class foo(object):
def __init__(self):
self.GET_STUFF = getStuff
print "static var: ",self.GET_STUFF
self.GET_STUFF()
The result is like expected and works fine:
outer func: <function getStuff at 0x000000000331F908>
static var: <function getStuff at 0x000000000331F908>
I do my stuff!!!
But:
I wanted to use a static class variable, because it makes it easy to read and simple to setup for different API's. So in the end I would come up with some wrapper classes like in the following:
from API01 import getStuff01
from API02 import getStuff02
# bar calculates stuff object from the API (it calls GET_STUFF)
# and stores the object into self.stuff
import bar
class foo01(bar):
GET_STUFF = getStuff01
def DoSomething(self, volume):
self.stuff.volume = volume
class foo02(bar):
GET_STUFF = getStuff02
def DoSomething(self, volume):
self.stuff.volume = volume
# [...] and so on..
Is there a way to bring it to work in the way I want to setup my wrapper classes, or do I really have to define a constructor for each wrapper class?
Thanks

The reason for the error is that
self.GET_STUFF()
actually means
tmp = getattr(self, 'GET_STUFF')
tmp(self)
That means these two classes are equivalent:
def foo(self): pass
class Foo(object):
a = foo
class Bar(object):
def a(self): pass
In both cases, a function object is added to the class as a member and that means for Python that the function wants self as the first parameter.
To achieve what you want:
from API01 import getStuff01
def wrapper01(self):
getStuff01()
class foo01(object):
GET_STUFF = wrapper01

Just for extend Aaron answer, if you want to have static methods you can use the #staticmethod decorator:
class Calc:
#staticmethod
def sum(x, y):
return x + y
print (Calc.sum(3,4))
>>> 7

I thought already that my object is calling the referenced function with itself as argument. After a bit of research I finally found a solution. When I use a class variable to point to a function it will not referencing a direct pointer. It references the function as a bounced method of it's class. To get rid of the default call of calling a method with getattr, the call function of getattr for the class itself has to be overwritten (in this case the class bar, because foo (the wrapper classes) inherits the functionalities of bar:
import inspect
class bar(object):
GET_STUFF = None
def __getattribute__(self, name):
attr = object.__getattribute__(self,name)
if name == "GET_STUFF":
# Check: is method and is bounced?
if inspect.ismethod(attr) and attr.im_self is not None:
return attr.__func__
return attr
getattr of bar is now pointing to the original function reference, but only for the class variable GET_STUFF, because I want to leave the default functionality for the rest of my variables.
So, when I now execute the following:
class foo(bar):
GET_STUFF = getStuff
def __init__(self):
print "inner func: ",self.GET_STUFF
self.GET_STUFF()
foo()
I get the expected result and can write my wrappers without producing additional code for each module with those wrapper classes:
outer func: <function getStuff at 0x00000000034259E8>
inner func: <function getStuff at 0x00000000034259E8>
I do my stuff!!!

which position is self in python class?

In the book learning python 5th edition (o'reilly Mark Lutz)page912)
class PrivateExc(Exception): pass # More on exceptions in Part VII
class Privacy:
def __setattr__(self, attrname, value): # On self.attrname = value
if attrname in self.privates:
raise PrivateExc(attrname, self) # Make, raise user-define except
else:
self.__dict__[attrname] = value # Avoid loops by using dict key
class Test1(Privacy):
privates = ['age']
class Test2(Privacy):
privates = ['name', 'pay']
def __init__(self):
self.__dict__['name'] = 'Tom' # To do better, see Chapter 39!
Maybe it is wrong in the 5th lineraise PrivateExc(attrname, self) ,
the self argument will be set as position 1st.
Will be the line changed into raise PrivateExc(self,attrname)?Why not?

Actually it doesn't matter.
Subclassing from Exception without any additional constructor doesn't restrict what you can pass as arguments to the exception class. And you can pass them in any order you want.
The arguments passed to the PrivateExc class just get stored in the instance as the instance attribute .args
Example:
>>> class MyError(Exception):
... """MyError"""
...
>>> e = MyError("foo", "bar")
>>> e.args
('foo', 'bar')
>>> e
MyError('foo', 'bar')
What this basically means in the book you're reading is;
If you were to catch the exception PrivateExc you'd do something like this:
try:
...
except PrivateExc as error:
attrname, obj = error.args
...

When you are calling a method like this:
#!/bin/python
myinstance.some_method(a,b,c)
... then this is dispatched to some_method as: some_method(myinstance, a, b, c)
The instance through which the method was invoked is passed as your first argument. This is completely different than C++ and Java ... which use an implicit "this" reference ... a pointer valid from within your method's scope but not passed to it as an argument.
I hope that answers your question, thought the code example does nothing to clarify what you're attempting to do.

I think you are just confused about parameters in function definition and function calling.
In a class, a method(instance method) has a non-optional parameter in the first position, usually named self, in the definition, like this:
class Foo:
def foo(self, another_param):
pass
And the self references the instance that you call foo function with. If you have code like this:
f=Foo()
f.foo("test")
self references the f and another_param references the "test" string in the above code.
And then in the foo function, you can use self just like other parameters.
Suppose you have a Print function like this:
def Print(x):
print "Param:", x
Then you can make you Foo class like this:
class Foo:
def foo(self, another_param):
Print(another_param) # I think this will not confuse you
Or this:
class Foo:
def foo(self, another_param):
Print(self) # Now, you may understand this, self is just a param in function calling, like another_param
And now, change the Print function to PrivateExc(you can think it a function to create a PrivateExc instance here), you may understand it either.
Hope these examples can help you understand you question.

Python Classes: turn all inherited methods private

Class Bar inherits from Foo:
class Foo(object):
def foo_meth_1(self):
return 'foometh1'
def foo_meth_2(self):
return 'foometh2'
class Bar(Foo):
def bar_meth(self):
return 'bar_meth'
Is there a way of turning all methods inherited from Foo private?
class Bar(Foo):
def bar_meth(self):
return 'bar_meth'
def __foo_meth_1(self):
return 'foometh1'
def __foo_meth_2(self):
return 'foometh2'

Python doesn't have privates, only obfuscated method names. But I suppose you could iterate over the methods of the superclass when creating the instance, removing them from yourself and creating new obfuscatingly named method names for those functions. setattr and getattr could be useful if you use a function to create obfuscated names.
With that said, it's a pretty cthuhlu-oid thing to do. You mention the intent is to keep the namespace cleaner, but this is more like mixing ammonia and chlorine. If the method needs to be hidden, hide it in the superclass. The don't create instances of the superclass -- instead create a specific class that wraps the hidden methods in public ones, which you could name the same thing but strip the leading whitespace.
Assuming I understand your intent correctly, I would suggest doing something like this:
class BaseFoo(object):
def __init__(self):
raise NotImplementedError('No instances of BaseFoo please.')
def _foo(self):
return 'Foo.'
def _bar(self):
return 'Bar.'
class HiddenFoo(BaseFoo):
def __init__(self): pass
class PublicFoo(BaseFoo):
def __init__(self): pass
foo = BaseFoo._foo
bar = BaseFoo._bar
def try_foobar(instance):
print 'Trying ' + instance.__class__.__name__
try:
print 'foo: ' + instance.foo
print 'bar: ' + instance.bar
except AttributeError, e:
print e
foo_1 = HiddenFoo()
foo_2 = PublicFoo()
try_foobar(foo_1)
try_foobar(foo_2)
And if PublicFoo.foo would do something more than BaseFoo.foo, you would write a wrapper that does whatever is needed, and then calls foo from the superclass.

This is only possible with Pyhtons's metaclasses. But this is quite sophisticated and I am not sure if it is worth the effort. For details have a look here
Why would you like to do so?

Since foo() and __foo() are completely different methods with no link between them, Python is unable to understand what you want to do. So you have to explain to it step by step, meaning (like sapth said) to remove the old methods and add new ones.
This is an Object Oriented Design flaw and a better approach would be through delegation:
class Basic:
def meth_1(self):
return 'meth1'
def meth_2(self):
return 'meth2'
class Foo(Basic):
# Nothing to do here
pass
class Bar:
def __init__(self):
self.dg = Basic()
def bar_meth(self):
return 'bar_meth ' + self.__meth_1()
def __meth_1(self):
return self.dg.meth_1()
def __meth_2(self):
return self.dg.meth_2()
While Foo inherits the Basic class because he wants the public methods from him, Bar will only delegate the job to Basic because he doesn't want to integrate Basic's interface into its own interface.

You can use metaclasses, but Boo will no longer be an actual subclass of Foo, unless you want Foo's methods to be both 'private' and 'public' in instances of Bar (you cannot selectively inherit names or delattr members inherited from parent classes). Here is a very contrived example:
from inspect import getmembers, isfunction
class TurnPrivateMetaclass(type):
def __new__(cls, name, bases, d):
private = {'__%s' % i:j for i,j in getmembers(bases[0]) if isfunction(j)}
d.update(private)
return type.__new__(cls, name, (), d)
class Foo:
def foo_meth_1(self): return 'foometh1'
def foo_meth_2(self): return 'foometh2'
class Bar(Foo, metaclass=TurnPrivateMetaclass):
def bar_meth(self): return 'bar_meth'
b = Bar()
assert b.__foo_meth_1() == 'foometh1'
assert b.__foo_meth_2() == 'foometh2'
assert b.bar_meth() == 'bar_meth
If you wanted to get attribute access working, you could create a new Foo base class in __new__ with all renamed methods removed.