Related
I am looking to implement a custom method in my class which helps users slice based on index. The primary slicing will be based on dictionary key. I want to implement it similar to how Pandas does it, using df.iloc[n]
here's my code:
class Vector:
def __init__(self, map_object: dict):
self.dictionary = map_object
def __getitem__(self, key):
data = self.dictionary[key]
return data
def iloc(self, n):
key = list(self.dictionary)[n]
return self.dictionary[key]
However, if then write object.iloc[3] after creating the object, I get an error saying 'method' object is not subscriptable. So how can I implement this?
The [ ] syntax requires a proper object with a __getitem__ method. In order to have a "slice method", use a property that returns a helper which supports slicing.
The helper simply holds a reference to the actual parent object, and defines a __getitem__ with the desired behaviour:
class VectorIloc:
def __init__(self, parent):
self.parent = parent
# custom logic for desired "iloc" behaviour
def __getitem__(self, item):
key = list(self.parent.dictionary)[item]
return self.parent[key]
On the actual class, merely define the desired "method" as a property that returns the helper or as an attribute:
class Vector:
def __init__(self, map_object: dict):
self.dictionary = map_object
# if .iloc is used often
# self.iloc = VectorIloc(self)
def __getitem__(self, key):
return self.dictionary[key]
# if .iloc is used rarely
#property
def iloc(self):
return VectorIloc(self)
Whether to use a property or an attribute is an optimisation that trades memory for performance: an attribute constructs and stores the helper always, while a property constructs it only on-demand but on each access. A functools.cached_property can be used as a middle-ground, creating the attribute on first access.
The property is advantageous when the helper is used rarely per object, and especially if it often is not used at all.
Now, when calling vector.iloc[3], the vector.iloc part provides the helper and the [3] part invoces the helper's __getitem__.
>>> vector = Vector({0:0, 1: 1, 2: 2, "three": 3})
>>> vector.iloc[3]
3
I was looking for this implementation which I'm pretty used to in Pandas. However, after searching a lot, I could not find any suitable answer. So I went looking through the Pandas source code and found that the primary requirement for implementing this are as follows:
Create the method with #property decorator, so that it accepts the slice object without throwing the above error
Create a second class to slice based on the index, pass self to this class, and return this class from the method
My final code ended up looking something like this:
class TimeSeries:
def __init__(self, data: dict):
self.data = data
def __getitem__(self, key):
data = self.data[key]
return data
#property
def iloc(self):
return Slicer(self)
class Slicer:
def __init__(self, obj):
self.time_series = obj
def __getitem__(self, n):
key = list(self.time_series.data)[n]
return self.time_series[key]
With the classes defined this way, I could write the following code:
>>> ts = TimeSeries({'a': 1, 'b': 2, 'c': 3, 'd': 4})
>>> print("value of a:", ts['a'])
value of a: 1
>>> print("value at position 0:", ts.iloc[0])
value at position 0: 1
My class has a dict, for example:
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self):
self.data = {'a': 'v1', 'b': 'v2'}
Then I want to use the dict's key with MyClass instance to access the dict, for example:
ob = MyClass()
v = ob.a # Here I expect ob.a returns 'v1'
I know this should be implemented by __getattr__, but I'm new to Python, I don't exactly know how to implement it.
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self):
self.data = {'a': 'v1', 'b': 'v2'}
def __getattr__(self, attr):
return self.data[attr]
>>> ob = MyClass()
>>> v = ob.a
>>> v
'v1'
Be careful when implementing __setattr__ though, you will need to make a few modifications:
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self):
# prevents infinite recursion from self.data = {'a': 'v1', 'b': 'v2'}
# as now we have __setattr__, which will call __getattr__ when the line
# self.data[k] tries to access self.data, won't find it in the instance
# dictionary and return self.data[k] will in turn call __getattr__
# for the same reason and so on.... so we manually set data initially
super(MyClass, self).__setattr__('data', {'a': 'v1', 'b': 'v2'})
def __setattr__(self, k, v):
self.data[k] = v
def __getattr__(self, k):
# we don't need a special call to super here because getattr is only
# called when an attribute is NOT found in the instance's dictionary
try:
return self.data[k]
except KeyError:
raise AttributeError
>>> ob = MyClass()
>>> ob.c = 1
>>> ob.c
1
If you don't need to set attributes just use a namedtuple
eg.
>>> from collections import namedtuple
>>> MyClass = namedtuple("MyClass", ["a", "b"])
>>> ob = MyClass(a=1, b=2)
>>> ob.a
1
If you want the default arguments you can just write a wrapper class around it:
class MyClass(namedtuple("MyClass", ["a", "b"])):
def __new__(cls, a="v1", b="v2"):
return super(MyClass, cls).__new__(cls, a, b)
or maybe it looks nicer as a function:
def MyClass(a="v1", b="v2", cls=namedtuple("MyClass", ["a", "b"])):
return cls(a, b)
>>> ob = MyClass()
>>> ob.a
'v1'
Late to the party, but found two really good resources that explain this better (IMHO).
As explained here, you should use self.__dict__ to access fields from within __getattr__, in order to avoid infinite recursion. The example provided is:
def __getattr__(self, attrName):
if not self.__dict__.has_key(attrName):
value = self.fetchAttr(attrName) # computes the value
self.__dict__[attrName] = value
return self.__dict__[attrName]
Note: in the second line (above), a more Pythonic way would be (has_key apparently was even removed in Python 3):
if attrName not in self.__dict__:
The other resource explains that the __getattr__ is invoked only when the attribute is not found in the object, and that hasattr always returns True if there is an implementation for __getattr__. It provides the following example, to demonstrate:
class Test(object):
def __init__(self):
self.a = 'a'
self.b = 'b'
def __getattr__(self, name):
return 123456
t = Test()
print 'object variables: %r' % t.__dict__.keys()
#=> object variables: ['a', 'b']
print t.a
#=> a
print t.b
#=> b
print t.c
#=> 123456
print getattr(t, 'd')
#=> 123456
print hasattr(t, 'x')
#=> True
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.data = {'a': 'v1', 'b': 'v2'}
def __getattr__(self, attr):
try:
return self.data[attr]
except Exception:
return "not found"
>>>a = A()
>>>print a.a
v1
>>>print a.c
not found
I like to take this therefore.
I took it from somewhere, but I don't remember where.
class A(dict):
def __init__(self, *a, **k):
super(A, self).__init__(*a, **k)
self.__dict__ = self
This makes the __dict__ of the object the same as itself, so that attribute and item access map to the same dict:
a = A()
a['a'] = 2
a.b = 5
print a.a, a['b'] # prints 2 5
I figured out an extension to #glglgl's answer that handles nested dictionaries and dictionaries insides lists that are in the original dictionary:
class d(dict):
def __init__(self, *a, **k):
super(d, self).__init__(*a, **k)
self.__dict__ = self
for k in self.__dict__:
if isinstance(self.__dict__[k], dict):
self.__dict__[k] = d(self.__dict__[k])
elif isinstance(self.__dict__[k], list):
for i in range(len(self.__dict__[k])):
if isinstance(self.__dict__[k][i], dict):
self.__dict__[k][i] = d(self.__dict__[k][i])
A simple approach to solving your __getattr__()/__setattr__() infinite recursion woes
Implementing one or the other of these magic methods can usually be easy. But when overriding them both, it becomes trickier. This post's examples apply mostly to this more difficult case.
When implementing both these magic methods, it's not uncommon to get stuck figuring out a strategy to get around recursion in the __init__() constructor of classes. This is because variables need to be initialized for the object, but every attempt to read or write those variables go through __get/set/attr__(), which could have more unset variables in them, incurring more futile recursive calls.
Up front, a key point to remember is that __getattr__() only gets called by the runtime if the attribute can't be found on the object already. The trouble is to get attributes defined without tripping these functions recursively.
Another point is __setattr__() will get called no matter what. That's an important distinction between the two functions, which is why implementing both attribute methods can be tricky.
This is one basic pattern that solves the problem.
class AnObjectProxy:
_initialized = False # *Class* variable 'constant'.
def __init__(self):
self._any_var = "Able to access instance vars like usual."
self._initialized = True # *instance* variable.
def __getattr__(self, item):
if self._initialized:
pass # Provide the caller attributes in whatever ways interest you.
else:
try:
return self.__dict__[item] # Transparent access to instance vars.
except KeyError:
raise AttributeError(item)
def __setattr__(self, key, value):
if self._initialized:
pass # Provide caller ways to set attributes in whatever ways.
else:
self.__dict__[key] = value # Transparent access.
While the class is initializing and creating it's instance vars, the code in both attribute functions permits access to the object's attributes via the __dict__ dictionary transparently - your code in __init__() can create and access instance attributes normally. When the attribute methods are called, they only access self.__dict__ which is already defined, thus avoiding recursive calls.
In the case of self._any_var, once it's assigned, __get/set/attr__() won't be called to find it again.
Stripped of extra code, these are the two pieces that are most important.
... def __getattr__(self, item):
... try:
... return self.__dict__[item]
... except KeyError:
... raise AttributeError(item)
...
... def __setattr__(self, key, value):
... self.__dict__[key] = value
Solutions can build around these lines accessing the __dict__ dictionary. To implement an object proxy, two modes were implemented: initialization and post-initialization in the code before this - a more detailed example of the same is below.
There are other examples in answers that may have differing levels of effectiveness in dealing with all aspects of recursion. One effective approach is accessing __dict__ directly in __init__() and other places that need early access to instance vars. This works but can be a little verbose. For instance,
self.__dict__['_any_var'] = "Setting..."
would work in __init__().
My posts tend to get a little long-winded.. after this point is just extra. You should already have the idea with the examples above.
A drawback to some other approaches can be seen with debuggers in IDE's. They can be overzealous in their use of introspection and produce warning and error recovery messages as you're stepping through code. You can see this happening even with solutions that work fine standalone. When I say all aspects of recursion, this is what I'm talking about.
The examples in this post only use a single class variable to support 2-modes of operation, which is very maintainable.
But please NOTE: the proxy class required two modes of operation to set up and proxy for an internal object. You don't have to have two modes of operation.
You could simply incorporate the code to access the __dict__ as in these examples in whatever ways suit you.
If your requirements don't include two modes of operation, you may not need to declare any class variables at all. Just take the basic pattern and customize it.
Here's a closer to real-world (but by no means complete) example of a 2-mode proxy that follows the pattern:
>>> class AnObjectProxy:
... _initialized = False # This class var is important. It is always False.
... # The instances will override this with their own,
... # set to True.
... def __init__(self, obj):
... # Because __getattr__ and __setattr__ access __dict__, we can
... # Initialize instance vars without infinite recursion, and
... # refer to them normally.
... self._obj = obj
... self._foo = 123
... self._bar = 567
...
... # This instance var overrides the class var.
... self._initialized = True
...
... def __setattr__(self, key, value):
... if self._initialized:
... setattr(self._obj, key, value) # Proxying call to wrapped obj.
... else:
... # this block facilitates setting vars in __init__().
... self.__dict__[key] = value
...
... def __getattr__(self, item):
... if self._initialized:
... attr = getattr(self._obj, item) # Proxying.
... return attr
... else:
... try:
... # this block facilitates getting vars in __init__().
... return self.__dict__[item]
... except KeyError:
... raise AttributeError(item)
...
... def __call__(self, *args, **kwargs):
... return self._obj(*args, **kwargs)
...
... def __dir__(self):
... return dir(self._obj) + list(self.__dict__.keys())
The 2-mode proxy only needs a bit of "bootstrapping" to access vars in its own scope at initialization before any of its vars are set. After initialization, the proxy has no reason to create more vars for itself, so it will fare fine by deferring all attribute calls to it's wrapped object.
Any attribute the proxy itself owns will still be accessible to itself and other callers since the magic attribute functions only get called if an attribute can't be found immediately on the object.
Hopefully this approach can be of benefit to anyone who appreciates a direct approach to resolving their __get/set/attr__() __init__() frustrations.
You can initialize your class dictionary through the constructor:
def __init__(self,**data):
And call it as follows:
f = MyClass(**{'a': 'v1', 'b': 'v2'})
All of the instance attributes being accessed (read) in __setattr__, need to be declared using its parent (super) method, only once:
super().__setattr__('NewVarName1', InitialValue)
Or
super().__setattr__('data', dict())
Thereafter, they can be accessed or assigned to in the usual manner:
self.data = data
And instance attributes not being accessed in __setattr__, can be declared in the usual manner:
self.x = 1
The overridden __setattr__ method must now call the parent method inside itself, for new variables to be declared:
super().__setattr__(key,value)
A complete class would look as follows:
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self, **data):
# The variable self.data is used by method __setattr__
# inside this class, so we will need to declare it
# using the parent __setattr__ method:
super().__setattr__('data', dict())
self.data = data
# These declarations will jump to
# super().__setattr__('data', dict())
# inside method __setattr__ of this class:
self.x = 1
self.y = 2
def __getattr__(self, name):
# This will callback will never be called for instance variables
# that have beed declared before being accessed.
if name in self.data:
# Return a valid dictionary item:
return self.data[name]
else:
# So when an instance variable is being accessed, and
# it has not been declared before, nor is it contained
# in dictionary 'data', an attribute exception needs to
# be raised.
raise AttributeError
def __setattr__(self, key, value):
if key in self.data:
# Assign valid dictionary items here:
self.data[key] = value
else:
# Assign anything else as an instance attribute:
super().__setattr__(key,value)
Test:
f = MyClass(**{'a': 'v1', 'b': 'v2'})
print("f.a = ", f.a)
print("f.b = ", f.b)
print("f.data = ", f.data)
f.a = 'c'
f.d = 'e'
print("f.a = ", f.a)
print("f.b = ", f.b)
print("f.data = ", f.data)
print("f.d = ", f.d)
print("f.x = ", f.x)
print("f.y = ", f.y)
# Should raise attributed Error
print("f.g = ", f.g)
Output:
f.a = v1
f.b = v2
f.data = {'a': 'v1', 'b': 'v2'}
f.a = c
f.b = v2
f.data = {'a': 'c', 'b': 'v2'}
f.d = e
f.x = 1
f.y = 2
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "MyClass.py", line 49, in <module>
print("f.g = ", f.g)
File "MyClass.py", line 25, in __getattr__
raise AttributeError
AttributeError
I think this implement is cooler
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self):
self.data = {'a': 'v1', 'b': 'v2'}
def __getattr__(self,key):
return self.data.get(key,None)
While looking over some code in Think Complexity, I noticed their Graph class assigning values to itself. I've copied a few important lines from that class and written an example class, ObjectChild, that fails at this behavior.
class Graph(dict):
def __init__(self, vs=[], es=[]):
for v in vs:
self.add_vertex(v)
for e in es:
self.add_edge(e)
def add_edge(self, e):
v, w = e
self[v][w] = e
self[w][v] = e
def add_vertex(self, v):
self[v] = {}
class ObjectChild(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self['name'] = name
I'm sure the different built in types all have their own way of using this, but I'm not sure whether this is something I should try to build into my classes. Is it possible, and how? Is this something I shouldn't bother with, relying instead on simple composition, e.g. self.l = [1, 2, 3]? Should it be avoided outside built in types?
I ask because I was told "You should almost never inherit from the builtin python collections"; advice I'm hesitant to restrict myself to.
To clarify, I know that ObjectChild won't "work", and I could easily make it "work", but I'm curious about the inner workings of these built in types that makes their interface different from a child of object.
In Python 3 and later, just add these simple functions to your class:
class some_class(object):
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
setattr(self, key, value)
def __getitem__(self, key):
return getattr(self, key)
They are accomplishing this magic by inheriting from dict. A better way of doing this is to inherit from UserDict or the newer collections.MutableMapping
You could accomplish a similar result by doing the same:
import collections
class ObjectChild(collections.MutableMapping):
def __init__(self, name):
self['name'] = name
You can also define two special functions to make your class dictionary-like: __getitem__(self, key) and __setitem__(self, key, value). You can see an example of this at Dive Into Python - Special Class Methods.
Disclaimer : I might be wrong.
the notation :
self[something]
is legit in the Graph class because it inherits fro dict. This notation is from the dictionnaries ssyntax not from the class attribute declaration syntax.
Although all namespaces associated with a class are dictionnaries, in your class ChildObject, self isn't a dictionnary. Therefore you can't use that syntax.
Otoh, in your class Graph, self IS a dictionnary, since it is a graph, and all graphs are dictionnaries because they inherit from dict.
Is using something like this ok?
def mk_opts_dict(d):
''' mk_options_dict(dict) -> an instance of OptionsDict '''
class OptionsDict(object):
def __init__(self, d):
self.__dict__ = d
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
self.__dict__[key] = value
def __getitem__(self, key):
return self.__dict__[key]
return OptionsDict(d)
I realize this is an old post, but I was looking for some details around item assignment and stumbled upon the answers here. Ted's post wasn't completely wrong. To avoid inheritance from dict, you can make a class inherit from MutableMapping, and then provide methods for __setitem__ and __getitem__.
Additionally, the class will need to support methods for __delitem__, __iter__, __len__, and (optionally) other inherited mixin methods, like pop. The documentation has more info on the details.
from collections.abc import MutableMapping
class ItemAssign(MutableMapping):
def __init__(self, a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
def __setitem__(self, k, v):
setattr(self, k, v)
def __getitem__(self, k):
getattr(self, k)
def __len__(self):
return 2
def __delitem__(self, k):
self[k] = None
def __iter__(self):
yield self.a
yield self.b
Example use:
>>> x = ItemAssign("banana","apple")
>>> x["a"] = "orange"
>>> x.a
'orange'
>>> del x["a"]
>>> print(x.a)
None
>>> x.pop("b")
'apple'
>>> print(x.b)
None
Hope this serves to clarify how to properly implement item assignment for others stumbling across this post :)
Your ObjectChild doesn't work because it's not a subclass of dict. Either of these would work:
class ObjectChild(dict):
def __init__(self, name):
self['name'] = name
or
class ObjectChild(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
You don't need to inherit from dict. If you provide setitem and getitem methods, you also get the desired behavior I believe.
class a(object):
def __setitem__(self, k, v):
self._data[k] = v
def __getitem__(self, k):
return self._data[k]
_data = {}
Little memo about <dict> inheritance
For those who want to inherit dict.
In this case MyDict will have a shallow copy of original dict in it.
class MyDict(dict):
...
d = {'a': 1}
md = MyDict(d)
print(d['a']) # 1
print(md['a']) # 1
md['a'] = 'new'
print(d['a']) # 1
print(md['a']) # new
This could lead to problem when you have a tree of nested dicts and you want to covert part of it to an object. Changing this object will not affect its parent
root = {
'obj': {
'a': 1,
'd': {'x': True}
}
}
obj = MyDict(root['obj'])
obj['a'] = 2
print(root) # {'obj': {'a': 1, 'd': {'x': True}}} # 'a' is the same
obj['d']['x'] = False
print(root) # {'obj': {'a': 1, 'd': {'x': True}}} # 'x' chanded
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>
I want to write a custom class that behaves like dict - so, I am inheriting from dict.
My question, though, is: Do I need to create a private dict member in my __init__() method?. I don't see the point of this, since I already have the dict behavior if I simply inherit from dict.
Can anyone point out why most of the inheritance snippets look like the one below?
class CustomDictOne(dict):
def __init__(self):
self._mydict = {}
# other methods follow
Instead of the simpler...
class CustomDictTwo(dict):
def __init__(self):
# initialize my other stuff here ...
# other methods follow
Actually, I think I suspect the answer to the question is so that users cannot directly access your dictionary (i.e. they have to use the access methods that you have provided).
However, what about the array access operator []? How would one implement that? So far, I have not seen an example that shows how to override the [] operator.
So if a [] access function is not provided in the custom class, the inherited base methods will be operating on a different dictionary?
I tried the following snippet to test out my understanding of Python inheritance:
class myDict(dict):
def __init__(self):
self._dict = {}
def add(self, id, val):
self._dict[id] = val
md = myDict()
md.add('id', 123)
print md[id]
I got the following error:
KeyError: < built-in function id>
What is wrong with the code above?
How do I correct the class myDict so that I can write code like this?
md = myDict()
md['id'] = 123
[Edit]
I have edited the code sample above to get rid of the silly error I made before I dashed away from my desk. It was a typo (I should have spotted it from the error message).
class Mapping(dict):
def __setitem__(self, key, item):
self.__dict__[key] = item
def __getitem__(self, key):
return self.__dict__[key]
def __repr__(self):
return repr(self.__dict__)
def __len__(self):
return len(self.__dict__)
def __delitem__(self, key):
del self.__dict__[key]
def clear(self):
return self.__dict__.clear()
def copy(self):
return self.__dict__.copy()
def has_key(self, k):
return k in self.__dict__
def update(self, *args, **kwargs):
return self.__dict__.update(*args, **kwargs)
def keys(self):
return self.__dict__.keys()
def values(self):
return self.__dict__.values()
def items(self):
return self.__dict__.items()
def pop(self, *args):
return self.__dict__.pop(*args)
def __cmp__(self, dict_):
return self.__cmp__(self.__dict__, dict_)
def __contains__(self, item):
return item in self.__dict__
def __iter__(self):
return iter(self.__dict__)
def __unicode__(self):
return unicode(repr(self.__dict__))
o = Mapping()
o.foo = "bar"
o['lumberjack'] = 'foo'
o.update({'a': 'b'}, c=44)
print 'lumberjack' in o
print o
In [187]: run mapping.py
True
{'a': 'b', 'lumberjack': 'foo', 'foo': 'bar', 'c': 44}
Like this
class CustomDictOne(dict):
def __init__(self,*arg,**kw):
super(CustomDictOne, self).__init__(*arg, **kw)
Now you can use the built-in functions, like dict.get() as self.get().
You do not need to wrap a hidden self._dict. Your class already is a dict.
Check the documentation on emulating container types. In your case, the first parameter to add should be self.
UserDict from the Python standard library is designed for this purpose.
Here is an alternative solution:
class AttrDict(dict):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.__dict__ = self
a = AttrDict()
a.a = 1
a.b = 2
This is my best solution. I used this many times.
class DictLikeClass:
...
def __getitem__(self, key):
return getattr(self, key)
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
setattr(self, key, value)
...
You can use like:
>>> d = DictLikeClass()
>>> d["key"] = "value"
>>> print(d["key"])
A python class that acts like dict
What's wrong with this?
Can anyone point out why most of the inheritance snippets look like the one below?
class CustomDictOne(dict):
def __init__(self):
self._mydict = {}
Presumably there's a good reason to inherit from dict (maybe you're already passing one around and you want a more specific kind of dict) and you have a good reason to instantiate another dict to delegate to (because this will instantiate two dicts per instance of this class.) But doesn't that sound incorrect?
I never run into this use-case myself. I do like the idea of typing dicts where you are using dicts that are type-able. But in that case I like the idea of typed class attributes even moreso - and the whole point of a dict is you can give it keys of any hashable type, and values of any type.
So why do we see snippets like this? I personally think it's an easily made mistake that went uncorrected and thus perpetuated over time.
I would rather see, in these snippets, this, to demonstrate code reuse through inheritance:
class AlternativeOne(dict):
__slots__ = ()
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
# other init code here
# new methods implemented here
or, to demonstrate re-implementing the behavior of dicts, this:
from collections.abc import MutableMapping
class AlternativeTwo(MutableMapping):
__slots__ = '_mydict'
def __init__(self):
self._mydict = {}
# other init code here
# dict methods reimplemented and new methods implemented here
By request - adding slots to a dict subclass.
Why add slots? A builtin dict instance doesn't have arbitrary attributes:
>>> d = dict()
>>> d.foo = 'bar'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'dict' object has no attribute 'foo'
If we create a subclass the way most are doing it here on this answer, we see we don't get the same behavior, because we'll have a __dict__ attribute, causing our dicts to take up to potentially twice the space:
my_dict(dict):
"""my subclass of dict"""
md = my_dict()
md.foo = 'bar'
Since there's no error created by the above, the above class doesn't actually act, "like dict."
We can make it act like dict by giving it empty slots:
class my_dict(dict):
__slots__ = ()
md = my_dict()
So now attempting to use arbitrary attributes will fail:
>>> md.foo = 'bar'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'my_dict' object has no attribute 'foo'
And this Python class acts more like a dict.
For more on how and why to use slots, see this Q&A: Usage of __slots__?
I really don't see the right answer to this anywhere
class MyClass(dict):
def __init__(self, a_property):
self[a_property] = a_property
All you are really having to do is define your own __init__ - that really is all that there is too it.
Another example (little more complex):
class MyClass(dict):
def __init__(self, planet):
self[planet] = planet
info = self.do_something_that_returns_a_dict()
if info:
for k, v in info.items():
self[k] = v
def do_something_that_returns_a_dict(self):
return {"mercury": "venus", "mars": "jupiter"}
This last example is handy when you want to embed some kind of logic.
Anyway... in short class GiveYourClassAName(dict) is enough to make your class act like a dict. Any dict operation you do on self will be just like a regular dict.
The problem with this chunk of code:
class myDict(dict):
def __init__(self):
self._dict = {}
def add(id, val):
self._dict[id] = val
md = myDict()
md.add('id', 123)
...is that your 'add' method (...and any method you want to be a member of a class) needs to have an explicit 'self' declared as its first argument, like:
def add(self, 'id', 23):
To implement the operator overloading to access items by key, look in the docs for the magic methods __getitem__ and __setitem__.
Note that because Python uses Duck Typing, there may actually be no reason to derive your custom dict class from the language's dict class -- without knowing more about what you're trying to do (e.g, if you need to pass an instance of this class into some code someplace that will break unless isinstance(MyDict(), dict) == True), you may be better off just implementing the API that makes your class sufficiently dict-like and stopping there.
Don’t inherit from Python built-in dict, ever! for example update method woldn't use __setitem__, they do a lot for optimization. Use UserDict.
from collections import UserDict
class MyDict(UserDict):
def __delitem__(self, key):
pass
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
pass