In order not to extend myself too much I will give a basic and hypothetical example of what I am trying to do.
Suppose the following class:
class foo():
def __init__(self):
self.keywords = []
## this method returns the entire list
def get_keywords(self):
return self.keywords
def set_keywords(self, value):
self.keywords.append(value)
But I want to code this in a pythonic way using the #property decorator.
My (wrong) attempt to do this:
class foo:
def __init__(self):
self.key = []
#property
def key(self):
return self.__key
#key.setter
def key(self, value):
self.__key.append(value)
So, whats is wrong in my attempt ?
ps: English is not my native language and I hope my doubt is understandable.
In your original code, self.set_keywords only appends to an existing list; it does not let you initialize the value of keywords to an arbitrary list. This restriction is preserved in your property-based code, which means you cannot assign directly to self.key; you have to initialize the underlying list in __init__ directly.
class foo:
def __init__(self):
# self.key = [] is equivalent to `self.__key.append([])`, but
# self.__key doesn't exist yet. (And would be wrong even if it did.)
self.__key = []
#property
def key(self):
return self.__key
#key.setter
def key(self, value):
self.__key.append(value)
However, this means an assignment like self.key = 3 doesn't actually perform what most people would expect of an assignment. It doesn't overwrite the old value, it adds to it instead. Use the setter to provide a fixed list, but a different method to add to an existing one.
class foo:
def __init__(self):
self.__keys = []
#property
def keys(self):
return self.__keys
#keys.setter
def keys(self, values):
self.__keys = values
def add_key(self, value):
self.__key.append(value)
And finally, it's not necessarily more Pythonic to use a property if you don't actually do any sort of extra work or validation in the getter or setter. If all you are doing is wrapping access to an underlying value, just let the value be used directly.
class foo:
def __init__(self):
self.keys = []
self.keys = [1,2,3]
print(self.keys)
self.keys.append(4)
# etc
The nice thing about properties is that if you start by allowing direct access to keys, then nothing about how you use keys changes if you later decide to replace it with a property.
You can give this a try:
class Foo:
def __init__(self):
self._key = []
#property
def key(self):
return self._key
#key.setter
def key(self, value):
self._key = value
Here are my two cents:
Rename the class foo to Foo
You can't initialize self.key, as this is the property, so initialize the correct variable in the constructor (i.e. __init__)
Private vars are prefixed with one _ scope and not two (two __ are Python internals)
I suppose you rather want my_instance.key = ['spam', 'eggs'] to replace the foo._key value than extend it. Because this is kind of a "setter" and that would result in a weird behaviour, or at least another developer won't expect that behaviour from that setter/function
However, and that's important: As long as you're only doing this, you won't need properties. You can simply initialize self.keys in the constructor and froget about the property and setter function. Later on, when you want to change the behaviour, you can still add the property and setter. That's one reason why we've properties in Python, so that you won't have to refactor your whole code in case "a bit more logic" comes into place.
Btw. if you're really depending everything on those dict functions, you might also want to inherit your class from the dict class. Depends what you're up to.
Related
Question
How can you extend a python property?
A subclass can extend a super class's function by calling it in the overloaded version, and then operating on the result. Here's an example of what I mean when I say "extending a function":
# Extending a function (a tongue-in-cheek example)
class NormalMath(object):
def __init__(self, number):
self.number = number
def add_pi(self):
n = self.number
return n + 3.1415
class NewMath(object):
def add_pi(self):
# NewMath doesn't know how NormalMath added pi (and shouldn't need to).
# It just uses the result.
n = NormalMath.add_pi(self)
# In NewMath, fractions are considered too hard for our users.
# We therefore silently convert them to integers.
return int(n)
Is there an analogous operation to extending functions, but for functions that use the property decorator?
I want to do some additional calculations immediately after getting an expensive-to-compute attribute. I need to keep the attribute's access lazy. I don't want the user to have to invoke a special routine to make the calculations. basically, I don't want the user to ever know the calculations were made in the first place. However, the attribute must remain a property, since i've got legacy code I need to support.
Maybe this is a job for decorators? If I'm not mistaken, decorator is a function that wraps another function, and I'm looking to wrap a property with some more calculations, and then present it as a property again, which seems like a similar idea... but I can't quite figure it out.
My Specific Problem
I've got a base class LogFile with an expensive-to-construct attribute .dataframe. I've implemented it as a property (with the property decorator), so it won't actually parse the log file until I ask for the dataframe. So far, it works great. I can construct a bunch (100+) LogFile objects, and use cheaper methods to filter and select only the important ones to parse. And whenever I'm using the same LogFile over and over, i only have to parse it the first time I access the dataframe.
Now I need to write a LogFile subclass, SensorLog, that adds some extra columns to the base class's dataframe attribute, but I can't quite figure out the syntax to call the super class's dataframe construction routines (without knowing anything about their internal workings), then operate on the resulting dataframe, and then cache/return it.
# Base Class - rules for parsing/interacting with data.
class LogFile(object):
def __init__(self, file_name):
# file name to find the log file
self.file_name = file_name
# non-public variable to cache results of parse()
self._dataframe = None
def parse(self):
with open(self.file_name) as infile:
...
...
# Complex rules to interpret the file
...
...
self._dataframe = pandas.DataFrame(stuff)
#property
def dataframe(self):
"""
Returns the dataframe; parses file if necessary. This works great!
"""
if self._dataframe is None:
self.parse()
return self._dataframe
#dataframe.setter
def dataframe(self,value):
self._dataframe = value
# Sub class - adds more information to data, but does't parse
# must preserve established .dataframe interface
class SensorLog(LogFile):
def __init__(self, file_name):
# Call the super's constructor
LogFile.__init__(self, file_name)
# SensorLog doesn't actually know about (and doesn't rely on) the ._dataframe cache, so it overrides it just in case.
self._dataframe = None
# THIS IS THE PART I CAN'T FIGURE OUT
# Here's my best guess, but it doesn't quite work:
#property
def dataframe(self):
# use parent class's getter, invoking the hidden parse function and any other operations LogFile might do.
self._dataframe = LogFile.dataframe.getter()
# Add additional calculated columns
self._dataframe['extra_stuff'] = 'hello world!'
return self._dataframe
#dataframe.setter
def dataframe(self, value):
self._dataframe = value
Now, when these classes are used in an interactive session, the user should be able to interact with either in the same way.
>>> log = LogFile('data.csv')
>>> print log.dataframe
#### DataFrame with 10 columns goes here ####
>>> sensor = SensorLog('data.csv')
>>> print sensor.dataframe
#### DataFrame with 11 columns goes here ####
I have lots of existing code that takes a LogFile instance which provides a .dataframe attribute and dos something interesting (mostly plotting). I would LOVE to have SensorLog instances present the same interface so they can use the same code. Is it possible to extend the super-class's dataframe getter to take advantage of existing routines? How? Or am I better off doing this a different way?
Thanks for reading that huge wall of text. You are an internet super hero, dear reader. Got any ideas?
You should be calling the superclass properties, not bypassing them via self._dataframe. Here's a generic example:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.__prop = None
#property
def prop(self):
return self.__prop
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
self.__prop = value
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
super(B, self).__init__()
#property
def prop(self):
value = A.prop.fget(self)
value['extra'] = 'stuff'
return value
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
A.prop.fset(self, value)
And using it:
b = B()
b.prop = dict((('a', 1), ('b', 2)))
print(b.prop)
Outputs:
{'a': 1, 'b': 2, 'extra': 'stuff'}
I would generally recommend placing side-effects in setters instead of getters, like this:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.__prop = None
#property
def prop(self):
return self.__prop
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
self.__prop = value
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
super(B, self).__init__()
#property
def prop(self):
return A.prop.fget(self)
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
value['extra'] = 'stuff'
A.prop.fset(self, value)
Having costly operations within a getter is also generally to be avoided (such as your parse method).
If I understand correctly what you want to do is call the parent's method from the child instance. The usual way to do that is by using the super built-in.
I've taken your tongue-in-cheek example and modified it to use super in order to show you:
class NormalMath(object):
def __init__(self, number):
self.number = number
def add_pi(self):
n = self.number
return n + 3.1415
class NewMath(NormalMath):
def add_pi(self):
# this will call NormalMath's add_pi with
normal_maths_pi_plus_num = super(NewMath, self).add_pi()
return int(normal_maths_pi_plus_num)
In your Log example, instead of calling:
self._dataframe = LogFile.dataframe.getter()
you should call:
self._dataframe = super(SensorLog, self).dataframe
You can read more about super here
Edit: Even thought the example I gave you deals with methods, to do the same with #properties shouldn't be a problem.
You have some possibilities to consider:
1/ Inherit from logfile and override parse in your derived sensor class. It should be possible to modify your methods that work on dataframe to work regardless of the number of members that dataframe has - as you are using pandas a lot of it is done for you.
2/ Make sensor an instance of logfile then provide its own parse method.
3/ Generalise parse, and possibly some of your other methods, to use a list of data descriptors and possibly a dictionary of methods/rules either set in your class initialiser or set by a methods.
4/ Look at either making more use of the methods already in pandas, or possibly, extending pandas to provide the missing methods if you and others think that they would be accepted into pandas as useful extensions.
Personally I think that you would find the benefits of options 3 or 4 to be the most powerful.
The problem is that you're missing a self going into the parent class. If your parent is a singleton then a #staticmethod should work.
class X():
x=1
#staticmethod
def getx():
return X.x
class Y(X):
y=2
def getyx(self):
return X.getx()+self.y
wx = Y()
wx.getyx()
3
Using Python, is there any way to store a reference to a reference, so that I can change what that reference refers to in another context? For example, suppose I have the following class:
class Foo:
def __init__(self):
self.standalone = 3
self.lst = [4, 5, 6]
I would like to create something analogous to the following:
class Reassigner:
def __init__(self, target):
self.target = target
def reassign(self, value):
# not sure what to do here, but reassigns the reference given by target to value
Such that the following code
f = Foo()
rStandalone = Reassigner(f.standalone) # presumably this syntax might change
rIndex = Reassigner(f.lst[1])
rStandalone.reassign(7)
rIndex.reassign(9)
Would result in f.standalone equal to 7 and f.lst equal to [4, 9, 6].
Essentially, this would be an analogue to a pointer-to-pointer.
In short, it's not possible. At all. The closest equivalent is storing a reference to the object whose member/item you want to reassign, plus the attribute name/index/key, and then use setattr/setitem. However, this yields quite different syntax, and you have to differentiate between the two:
class AttributeReassigner:
def __init__(self, obj, attr):
# use your imagination
def reassign(self, val):
setattr(self.obj, self.attr, val)
class ItemReassigner:
def __init__(self, obj, key):
# use your imagination
def reassign(self, val):
self.obj[self.key] = val
f = Foo()
rStandalone = AttributeReassigner(f, 'standalone')
rIndex = ItemReassigner(f.lst, 1)
rStandalone.reassign(7)
rIndex.reassign(9)
I've actually used something very similar, but the valid use cases are few and far between.
For globals/module members, you can use either the module object or globals(), depending on whether you're inside the module or outside of it. There is no equivalent for local variables at all -- the result of locals() cannot be used to change locals reliably, it's only useful for inspecting.
I've actually used something very similar, but the valid use cases are few and far between.
Simple answer: You can't.
Complicated answer: You can use lambdas. Sort of.
class Reassigner:
def __init__(self, target):
self.reassign = target
f = Foo()
rIndex = Reassigner(lambda value: f.lst.__setitem__(1, value))
rStandalone = Reassigner(lambda value: setattr(f, 'strandalone', value))
rF = Reassigner(lambda value: locals().__setitem__('f', value)
If you need to defer assignments; you could use functools.partial (or just lambda):
from functools import partial
set_standalone = partial(setattr, f, "standalone")
set_item = partial(f.lst.__setitem__, 1)
set_standalone(7)
set_item(9)
If reassign is the only operation; you don't need a new class.
Functions are first-class citizens in Python: you can assign them to a variable, store in a list, pass as arguments, etc.
This would work for the contents of container objects. If you don't mind adding one level of indirection to your variables (which you'd need in the C pointer-to-pointer case anyway), you could:
class Container(object):
def __init__(self, val):
self.val = val
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, target):
self.standalone = Container(3)
self.lst = [Container(4), Container(5), Container(6)]
And you wouldn't really need the reassigner object at all.
Class Reassigner(object):
def __init__(self, target):
self.target = target
def reassign(self, value):
self.target.val = 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>
Consider the following class :
class Token:
def __init__(self):
self.d_dict = {}
def __setattr__(self, s_name, value):
self.d_dict[s_name] = value
def __getattr__(self, s_name):
if s_name in self.d_dict.keys():
return self.d_dict[s_name]
else:
raise AttributeError('No attribute {0} found !'.format(s_name))
In my code Token have some other function (like get_all() wich return d_dict, has(s_name) which tell me if my token has a particular attribute).
Anyway, I think their is a flaw in my plan since it don't work : when I create a new instance, python try to call __setattr__('d_dict', '{}').
How can I achieve a similar behaviour (maybe in a more pythonic way ?) without having to write something like Token.set(name, value) and get(name) each I want to set or get an attribute for a token.
Critics about design flaw and/or stupidity welcome :)
Thank !
You need to special-case d_dict.
Although of course, in the above code, all you do is replicate what any object does with __dict__ already, so it's pretty pointless. Do I guess correctly if you intended to special case some attributes and actally use methods for those?
In that case, you can use properties.
class C(object):
def __init__(self):
self._x = None
#property
def x(self):
"""I'm the 'x' property."""
return self._x
#x.setter
def x(self, value):
self._x = value
#x.deleter
def x(self):
del self._x
The special-casing of __dict__ works like this:
def __init__(self):
self.__dict__['d_dict'] = {}
There is no need to use a new-style class for that.
A solution, not very pythonic but works. As Lennart Regebro pointed, you have to use a special case for d_dict.
class Token(object):
def __init__(self):
super(Token,self).__setattr__('d_dict', {})
def __getattr__(self,name):
return self.a[name]
def __setattr__(self,name,value):
self.a[name] = value
You need to use new style classes.
the problem seems to be in time of evaluation of your code in __init__ method.
You could define __new__ method and initialize d_dict variable there instead of __init__.
Thats a bit hackish but it works, remember though to comment it as after few months it'll be total magic.
>>> class Foo(object):
... def __new__(cls, *args):
... my_cls = super(Foo, cls).__new__(cls, *args)
... my_cls.d_dict = {}
... return my_cls
>>> f = Foo()
>>> id(f.d_dict)
3077948796L
>>> d = Foo()
>>> id(d.d_dict)
3078142804L
Word of explanation why I consider that hackish: call to __new__ returns new instance of class so then d_dict initialised in there is kind of static, but it's initialised with new instance of dictionary each time class is "created" so everything works as you need.
It's worth remembering that __getattr__ is only called if the attribute doesn't exist in the object, whereas __setattr__ is always called.
I think we'll be able to say something about the overall design of your class if you explain its purpose. For example,
# This is a class that serves as a dictionary but also has user-defined methods
class mydict(dict): pass
# This is a class that allows setting x.attr = value or getting x.attr:
class mysetget: pass
# This is a class that allows setting x.attr = value or getting x.attr:
class mygetsethas:
def has(self, key):
return key in self.__dict__
x = mygetsethas()
x.a = 5
print(x.has('a'), x.a)
I think the last class is closest to what you meant, and I also like to play with syntax and get lots of joy from it, but unfortunately this is not a good thing. Reasons why it's not advisable to use object attributes to re-implement dictionary: you can't use x.3, you conflict with x.has(), you have to put quotes in has('a') and many more.
I am programming a simulations for single neurons. Therefore I have to handle a lot of Parameters. Now the Idea is that I have two classes, one for a SingleParameter and a Collection of parameters. I use property() to access the parameter value easy and to make the code more readable. This works perfect for a sinlge parameter but I don't know how to implement it for the collection as I want to name the property in Collection after the SingleParameter. Here an example:
class SingleParameter(object):
def __init__(self, name, default_value=0, unit='not specified'):
self.name = name
self.default_value = default_value
self.unit = unit
self.set(default_value)
def get(self):
return self._v
def set(self, value):
self._v = value
v = property(fget=get, fset=set, doc='value of parameter')
par1 = SingleParameter(name='par1', default_value=10, unit='mV')
par2 = SingleParameter(name='par2', default_value=20, unit='mA')
# par1 and par2 I can access perfectly via 'p1.v = ...'
# or get its value with 'p1.v'
class Collection(object):
def __init__(self):
self.dict = {}
def __getitem__(self, name):
return self.dict[name] # get the whole object
# to get the value instead:
# return self.dict[name].v
def add(self, parameter):
self.dict[parameter.name] = parameter
# now comes the part that I don't know how to implement with property():
# It shoule be something like
# self.__dict__[parameter.name] = property(...) ?
col = Collection()
col.add(par1)
col.add(par2)
col['par1'] # gives the whole object
# Now here is what I would like to get:
# col.par1 -> should result like col['par1'].v
# col.par1 = 5 -> should result like col['par1'].v = 5
Other questions that I put to understand property():
Why do managed attributes just work for class attributes and not for instance attributes in python?
How can I assign a new class attribute via __dict__ in python?
Look at built-in functions getattr and setattr. You'll probably be a lot happier.
Using the same get/set functions for both classes forces you into an ugly hack with the argument list. Very sketchy, this is how I would do it:
In class SingleParameter, define get and set as usual:
def get(self):
return self._s
def set(self, value):
self._s = value
In class Collection, you cannot know the information until you create the property, so you define the metaset/metaget function and particularize them only later with a lambda function:
def metaget(self, par):
return par.s
def metaset(self, value, par):
par.s = value
def add(self, par):
self[par.name] = par
setattr(Collection, par.name,
property(
fget=lambda x : Collection.metaget(x, par),
fset=lambda x, y : Collection.metaset(x,y, par))
Properties are meant to dynamically evaluate attributes or to make them read-only. What you need is customizing attribute access. __getattr__ and __setattr__ do that really fine, and there's also __getattribute__ if __getattr__ is not enough.
See Python docs on customizing attribute access for details.
Have you looked at the traits package? It seems that you are reinventing the wheel here with your parameter classes. Traits also have additional features that might be useful for your type of application (incidently I know a person that happily uses traits in neural simulations).
Now I implemented a solution with set-/getattr:
class Collection(object):
...
def __setattr__(self, name, value):
if 'dict' in self.__dict__:
if name in self.dict:
self[name].v = value
else:
self.__dict__[name] = value
def __getattr__(self, name):
return self[name].v
There is one thing I quite don't like that much: The attributes are not in the __dict__. And if I have them there as well I would have a copy of the value - which can be dangerous...
Finally I succeded to implement the classes with property(). Thanks a lot for the advice. It took me quite a bit to work it out - but I can promise you that this exercise helps you to understand better pythons OOP.
I implemented it also with __getattr__ and __setattr__ but still don't know the advantages and disadvantages to the property-solution. But this seems to be worth another question. The property-solutions seems to be quit clean.
So here is the code:
class SingleParameter(object):
def __init__(self, name, default_value=0, unit='not specified'):
self.name = name
self.default_value = default_value
self.unit = unit
self.set(default_value)
def get(*args):
self = args[0]
print "get(): "
print args
return self._v
def set(*args):
print "set(): "
print args
self = args[0]
value = args[-1]
self._v = value
v = property(fget=get, fset=set, doc='value of parameter')
class Collection(dict):
# inheriting from dict saves the methods: __getitem__ and __init__
def add(self, par):
self[par.name] = par
# Now here comes the tricky part.
# (Note: this property call the get() and set() methods with one
# more argument than the property of SingleParameter)
setattr(Collection, par.name,
property(fget=par.get, fset=par.set))
# Applying the classes:
par1 = SingleParameter(name='par1', default_value=10, unit='mV')
par2 = SingleParameter(name='par2', default_value=20, unit='mA')
col = Collection()
col.add(par1)
col.add(par2)
# Setting parameter values:
par1.v = 13
col.par1 = 14
# Getting parameter values:
par1.v
col.par1
# checking identity:
par1.v is col.par1
# to access the whole object:
col['par1']
As I am new I am not sure how to move on:
how to treat follow up questions (like this itself):
get() is seems to be called twice - why?
oop-design: property vs. "__getattr__ & __setattr__" - when should I use what?
is it rude to check the own answer to the own question as accepted?
is it recommended to rename the title in order to put correlated questions or questions elaborated with the same example into the same context?
Other questions that I put to understand property():
Why do managed attributes just work for class attributes and not for instance attributes in python?
How can I assign a new class attribute via __dict__ in python?
I have a class that does something similar, but I did the following in the collection object:
setattr(self, par.name, par.v)