Situation: I have a function, I want to have a child with only one different default parameter. Is it possible to not rewrite every parameters and only the one that I want to change ?
class Weapon():
def __init__(self, weight=12, ammo=22, name="shotgun",useful=True, broken=False, needed_lvl=5, range=2, price=233):
pass # A LOT OF STUFF NOT INTERESTING FOR THIS EXAMPLE
WORKING ANSWER BUT NOT EFFICIENT: useless repeated information and can be easily break if one thing change in the parent.
class ShotGun(Weapon):
def __init__(self, weight=12, ammo=12, name="shotgun",useful=True, broken=False, needed_lvl=5, range=2, price=233):
pass # A LOT OF STUFF NOT INTERESTING FOR THIS EXAMPLE
WANTED ANSWER: If the user doesn't change anything, the default value of the parameter ammo should be 12.
class ShotGun(Weapon):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
super().__init__(**kwargs)
pass # A LOT OF STUFF NOT INTERESTING FOR THIS EXAMPLE
You can override only the specific argument. Just pass everything else to super().__init__(). But you still need to set the overriden attribute in the child class for the new default value to have any effect:
class Weapon():
def __init__(self, weight=12, ammo=22, name="shotgun",useful=True, broken=False, needed_lvl=5, range=2, price=233):
self.ammo = ammo
self.name = "shotgun"
class ShotGun(Weapon):
def __init__(self, ammo=12, **kwargs): # override only ammo
super().__init__(**kwargs)
self.ammo = ammo # use overriden value instead of parent
s = ShotGun()
print(s.ammo)
print(s.name)
Ouput:
12
shotgun
Related
I have seen super().__init__(*args) used to call the super constructor safely (in a way that does not fail to diamond inheritence). However I cannot find a way to call different super constructors with different arguments in this way.
Here is an example illustraiting the problem.
from typing import TypeVar, Generic
X = TypeVar("X")
Y = TypeVar("Y")
class Base:
def __init__(self):
pass
class Left(Base, Generic[X]):
def __init__(self, x:X):
super().__init__()
self.lft = x
class TopRight(Base, Generic[Y]):
def __init__(self, y:Y):
super().__init__()
self.rgh = y
class BottomRight(TopRight[Y], Generic[Y]):
def __init__(self, y:Y):
super().__init__(y + y)
class Root(Left[X], BottomRight[Y], Generic[X, Y]):
def __init__(self, x:X, y:Y):
pass #issue here
#does not work
#super().__init__(x)
#super().__init__(y)
#calls base twice
#Left[X].__init__(x)
#BottomRight[Y].__init__(y)
How do I call Left.__init__(x) and BottomRight.__init__(y) seperately and safely?
The thing is that to be use in cooperative form, the intermediate classes have to accept the arguments that are not "aimed" at them, and pass those on on their own super call, in a way that becomes transparent.
You them do not place multiple calls to your ancestor classes: you let the language runtime do that for you.
Your code should be written:
from typing import Generic, TypeVar
X = TypeVar("X")
Y = TypeVar("Y")
class Base:
def __init__(self):
pass
class Left(Base, Generic[X]):
def __init__(self, x:X, **kwargs):
super().__init__(**kwargs)
self.lft = x
class TopRight(Base, Generic[Y]):
def __init__(self, y:Y, **kwargs):
super().__init__(**kwargs)
self.rgh = y
class BottomRight(TopRight[Y], Generic[Y]):
def __init__(self, y:Y, **kwargs): # <- when this is executed, "y" is extracted from kwargs
super().__init__(y=y + y, **kwargs) # <- "x" remains in kwargs, but this class does not have to care about it.
class Root(Left[X], BottomRight[Y], Generic[X, Y]):
def __init__(self, x:X, y:Y):
super().__init__(x=x, y=y) # <- will traverse all superclasses, "Generic" being last
Also, note that depending on your project's ends, and final complexity, these type annotations may gain you nothing, and instead, add complexity to a code otherwise trivial. They are not always a gain in Python projects, although due to circunstances the tooling (i.e. IDEs), might recommend them.
Also, check this similar answer from a few days ago, were I detail a bit more of Python method resolution order mechanisms, and point to the official documentation on them: In multiple inheritance in Python, init of parent class A and B is done at the same time?
I know the title is probably a bit confusing, so let me give you an example. Suppose you have a base class Base which is intended to be subclassed to create more complex objects. But you also have optional functionality that you don't need for every subclass, so you put it in a secondary class OptionalStuffA that is always intended to be subclassed together with the base class. Should you also make that secondary class a subclass of Base?
This is of course only relevant if you have more than one OptionalStuff class and you want to combine them in different ways, because otherwise you don't need to subclass both Base and OptionalStuffA (and just have OptionalStuffA be a subclass of Base so you only need to subclass OptionalStuffA). I understand that it shouldn't make a difference for the MRO if Base is inherited from more than once, but I'm not sure if there are any drawbacks to making all the secondary classes inherit from Base.
Below is an example scenario. I've also thrown in the QObject class as a 'third party' token class whose functionality is necessary for one of the secondary classes to work. Where do I subclass it? The example below shows how I've done it so far, but I doubt this is the way to go.
from PyQt5.QtCore import QObject
class Base:
def __init__(self):
self._basic_stuff = None
def reset(self):
self._basic_stuff = None
class OptionalStuffA:
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
self._optional_stuff_a = None
def reset(self):
if hasattr(super(), 'reset'):
super().reset()
self._optional_stuff_a = None
def do_stuff_that_only_works_if_my_children_also_inherited_from_Base(self):
self._basic_stuff = not None
class OptionalStuffB:
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
self._optional_stuff_b = None
def reset(self):
if hasattr(super(), 'reset'):
super().reset()
self._optional_stuff_b = None
def do_stuff_that_only_works_if_my_children_also_inherited_from_QObject(self):
print(self.objectName())
class ClassThatIsActuallyUsed(Base, OptionalStuffA, OptionalStuffB, QObject):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
self._unique_stuff = None
def reset(self):
if hasattr(super(), 'reset'):
super().reset()
self._unique_stuff = None
What I can get from your problem is that you want to have different functions and properties based on different condition, that sounds like good reason to use MetaClass.
It all depends how complex your each class is, and what are you building, if it is for some library or API then MetaClass can do magic if used rightly.
MetaClass is perfect to add functions and property to the class based on some sort of condition, you just have to add all your subclass function into one meta class and add that MetaClass to your main class
From Where to start
you can read about MetaClass here, or you can watch it here.
After you have better understanding about MetaClass see the source code of Django ModelForm from here and here, but before that take a brief look on how the Django Form works from outside this will give You an idea on how to implement it.
This is how I would implement it.
#You can also inherit it from other MetaClass but type has to be top of inheritance
class meta_class(type):
# create class based on condition
"""
msc: meta_class, behaves much like self (not exactly sure).
name: name of the new class (ClassThatIsActuallyUsed).
base: base of the new class (Base).
attrs: attrs of the new class (Meta,...).
"""
def __new__(mcs, name, bases, attrs):
meta = attrs.get('Meta')
if(meta.optionA){
attrs['reset'] = resetA
}if(meta.optionB){
attrs['reset'] = resetB
}if(meta.optionC){
attrs['reset'] = resetC
}
if("QObject" in bases){
attrs['do_stuff_that_only_works_if_my_children_also_inherited_from_QObject'] = functionA
}
return type(name, bases, attrs)
class Base(metaclass=meta_class): #you can also pass kwargs to metaclass here
#define some common functions here
class Meta:
# Set default values here for the class
optionA = False
optionB = False
optionC = False
class ClassThatIsActuallyUsed(Base):
class Meta:
optionA = True
# optionB is False by default
optionC = True
EDIT: Elaborated on how to implement MetaClass.
Let me start with another alternative. In the example below the Base.foo method is a plain identity function, but options can override that.
class Base:
def foo(self, x):
return x
class OptionDouble:
def foo(self, x):
x *= 2 # preprocess example
return super().foo(x)
class OptionHex:
def foo(self, x):
result = super().foo(x)
return hex(result) # postprocess example
class Combined(OptionDouble, OptionHex, Base):
pass
b = Base()
print(b.foo(10)) # 10
c = Combined()
print(c.foo(10)) # 2x10 = 20, as hex string: "0x14"
The key is that in the definition of the Combined's bases are Options specified before the Base:
class Combined(OptionDouble, OptionHex, Base):
Read the class names left-to right and in this simple case
this is the order in which foo() implementations are ordered.
It is called the method resolution order (MRO).
It also defines what exactly super() means in particular classes and that is important, because Options are written as wrappers around the super() implementation
If you do it the other way around, it won't work:
class Combined(Base, OptionDouble, OptionHex):
pass
c = Combined()
print(Combined.__mro__)
print(c.foo(10)) # 10, options not effective!
In this case the Base implementation is called first and it directly returns the result.
You could take care of the correct base order manually or you could write a function that checks it. It walks through the MRO list and once it sees the Base it will not allow an Option after it.
class Base:
def __init_subclass__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init_subclass__(*args, **kwargs)
base_seen = False
for mr in cls.__mro__:
if base_seen:
if issubclass(mr, Option):
raise TypeError( f"The order of {cls.__name__} base classes is incorrect")
elif mr is Base:
base_seen = True
def foo(self, x):
return x
class Option:
pass
class OptionDouble(Option):
...
class OptionHex(Option):
...
Now to answer your comment. I wrote that #wettler's approach could be simplified. I meant something like this:
class Base:
def __init_subclass__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init_subclass__(*args, **kwargs)
print("options for the class", cls.__name__)
print('A', cls.optionA)
print('B', cls.optionB)
print('C', cls.optionC)
# ... modify the class according to the options ...
bases = cls.__bases__
# ... check if QObject is present in bases ...
# defaults
optionA = False
optionB = False
optionC = False
class ClassThatIsActuallyUsed(Base):
optionA = True
optionC = True
This demo will print:
options for the class ClassThatIsActuallyUsed
A True
B False
C True
How do you access an instance in an object and pass it to another 'main' object? I'm working with a parser for a file that parses different tags, INDI(individual), BIRT(event), FAMS(spouse), FAMC(children)
Basically there are three classes: Person, Event, Family
class Person():
def __init__(self, ref):
self._id = ref
self._birth : None
def addBirth(self, event):
self._birth: event
class Event():
def __init__(self, ref):
self._id = ref
self._event = None
def addEvent(self, event):
self._event = event
#**event = ['12 Jul 1997', 'Seattle, WA'] (this is generated from a function outside a class)
I want to transfer self._event from the Event class into addBirth method to add it into my person class. I have little knowledge on how classes and class inhertiances work. Please help!
If I understand your question, you want to pass an (for example) Event object to an instance of Person?
Honestly, I don't understand the intent of your code, but you probably just need to pass self from one class instance to the other class instance.
self references the current instance.
class Person:
def __init__(self):
self._events = []
def add_event(self, event)
self._events.append(event)
class Event:
def add_to_person(self, person):
person.add_event(self)
The most proper way to handle situations like this is to use getter and setter methods; data encapsulation is important in OO programming. I don't always see this done in Python where I think it should, as compared to other languages. It simply means to add methods to your classes who sole purpose are to return args to a caller, or modify args from a caller. For example
Say you have class A and B, and class B (caller) wants to use a variable x from class A. Then class A should provide a getter interface to handle such situations. Setting you work the same:
class class_A():
def __init__(self, init_args):
x = 0
def someMethod():
doStuff()
def getX():
return x
def setX(val):
x = val
class class_B():
def init(self):
init_args = stuff
A = class_A(init_args)
x = class_A.getX()
def someOtherMethod():
doStuff()
So if class B wanted the x property of an instance object A of class class_A, B just needs to call the getter method.
As far as passing instances of objects themselves, say if you wanted A to pass an already-created instance object of itself to a method in class B, then indeed, you simply would pass self.
I'm building a simulator, which will model various types of entities. So I've got a base class, ModelObject, and will use subclasses for all the different entities. Each entity will have a set of properties that I want to keep track of, so I've also got a class called RecordedDetail, that keeps tracks of changes (basically builds a list of (time_step, value) pairs) and each ModelObject has a dict to store these in. So I've got, effectively,
class ModelObject(object):
def __init__(self):
self.details = {}
self.time_step = 0
def get_detail(self, d_name):
""" get the current value of the specified RecordedDetail"""
return self.details[d_name].current_value()
def set_detail(self, d_name, value):
""" set the current value of the specified RecordedDetail"""
self.details[d_name].set_value(value, self.time_step)
class Widget(ModelObject):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__(self)
self.details["level"] = RecordedDetail()
self.details["angle"] = RecordedDetail()
#property
def level(self):
return self.get_detail("level")
#level.setter
def level(self, value):
self.set_detail("level", value)
#property
def angle(self):
return self.get_detail("angle")
#angle.setter
def angle(self):
self.set_detail("angle", value)
This gets terribly repetitious, and I can't help thinking there must be a way of automating it using a descriptor, but I can't work out how. I end up with
class RecordedProperty(object):
def __init__(self, p_name):
self.p_name = p_name
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
if instance is None:
return self
return instance.get_detail(self.p_name)
def __set__(self, instance, value):
instance.set_detail(self.p_name, value)
class Widget(ModelObject):
level = RecordedProperty("level")
angle = RecordedProperty("angle")
def __init__(self):
super().__init__(self)
self.details["level"] = RecordedDetail()
self.details["angle"] = RecordedDetail()
which is a bit of an improvement, but still a lot of typing.
So, a few questions.
Can I just add the descriptor stuff (__get__, __set__ etc) into the RecordedDetail class? Would there be any advantage to doing that?
Is there any way of typing the new property name (such as "level") fewer than three times, in two different places?
or
Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely?
The last bit of code is on the right track. You can make the process less nasty by using a metaclass to create a named RecordedProperty and a matching RecordedDetail for every item in a list. Here's a simple example:
class WidgetMeta(type):
def __new__(cls, name, parents, kwargs):
'''
Automate the creation of the class
'''
for item in kwargs['_ATTRIBS']:
kwargs[item] = RecordedProperty(item)
return super(WidgetMeta, cls).__new__(cls, name, parents, kwargs)
class Widget(ModelObject):
_ATTRIBS = ['level', 'angle']
__metaclass__ = WidgetMeta
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init__(self)
self.Details = {}
for detail in self._ATTRIBS:
self.Details[detail] = RecordedDetail()
Subclasses would then just need to have different data in _ATTRIBS.
As an alternative (I think it's more complex) you could use the metaclass to customize the init in the same way you customize the new, creating the RecordedDetails out of the _ATTRIBS list.
A third option would be to create a RecordedDetail in every instance on first access. That would work fine as long as you don't have code that expects a RecordedDetail for every property even if the RecordedDetail has not been touched.
Caveat I'm not super familiar with Python3; I've used the above pattern often in 2.7x
I am trying to create a new MyClass instance in MyClass's definition.
Why does this code fail and how can achieve it?
class MyClass:
def __init__(self):
self.child=MyClass()
mc=MyClass()
Well, it fails because it has infinite recursion. Think about it, if every MyClass has a child which is a MyClass, it will go on for infinity!
You can resolve this a couple of ways. First, you can have a parameter to the constructor:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self, create = True):
if create:
self.child = MyClass(False)
mc = MyClass()
Or, you can have another, external method:
class MyClass:
def set_child(self,child = None):
# I prefer to make child optional for ease of use.
child = MyClass() if child is None else child
self.child=child
mc=MyClass()
mc.set_child()
I personally prefer the first solution as it means that outside objects don't need to know anything about the class. Of course, you could combine the two:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self, create):
if create:
self.set_child(create=False)
def set_child(self,child = None, create = True):
child = MyClass(create) if child is None else child
self.child=child
mc=MyClass()
This way mc has a child by default and you have the option of setting the child whenever you like.
Then there is also the "let's create a certain number" approach:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self, count = 10):
count -= 1
if count:
# the first child gets the value 9.
# the second gets 8.
# when the count gets to 0, stop!
self.child = MyClass(count)
Aside: If you want to get an object's class, you can use the value obj.__class__. That will output MyClass in all of the examples above.
You're making an infinitely recursing call — MyClass is creating another MyClass during initialization, and thus it recurses infinitely.
You may want to do something like:
class MyClass:
def create_child(self):
self.child=MyClass()
mc=MyClass()
mc.create_child()
If you're feeling particularly naughty, you could try:
class MyClass(object):
#property
def child(self):
if self._child is None: self._child = MyClass()
return self._child
def __init__(self):
self._child=None
mc=MyClass()
What you did there is actualy recursive, the new isntance of MyClass will create a new instance that will in turn create a new one, etc ...
Soo I supose that is why your code fails, I can't tell for sure since you didn't post the error message.
I suggest to define two classes:
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self):
self.child = MyChildClass()
...many other methods...
class MyChildClass(MyClass):
def __init__(self):
pass
I think that if two classes must behave in two different ways, they must be different (although one can subclass the other)