This question already has answers here:
how to get derived class name from base class
(7 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
So I have my base class:
class Foo():
pass
I'm never going to instantiate this class - I just want it as a custom namespace. One of the things I want from it is its name:
>>> Foo.__name__
'Foo'
But I want to change the interface to this, so that there's no underscores. Getting the name of the class from the class object is going to happen a lot, so it should be cleaner:
class Foo:
def name():
return Foo.__name__
This works great! Oh, except I have the name "Foo" hard coded. I might as well just have it return a string. That's not good enough, because I need to inherit this adjustment:
class Bar(Foo):
pass
>>> Bar.name()
'Foo'
No bueno.
Basically, I need a class function that returns the name of the class, and which will still work when inherited. I can't use self because I'm not making instances. Is there anything which will achieve a similar result? Do functions know about the namespace they are called from? If I really need to use objects I will, but for my purposes that will be uglier than a simple class hierarchy.
EDIT: I do not not believe this question is the same as the one it has been linked with. The solutions provided to the other question - mainly invoking the .__class__ attribute - would not work as an answer to this question because in my example I explicitly avoid instantiating objects. Also, the best answer provided here (using the #classmethod decorator to get the class object as a "self"-esque arg) appears nowhere in the linked alternative. Also, I believe my question to be framed in a clearer and more basic way than its purported duplicate. The same goes for the answer chosen.
Just make it a class method with #classmethod and return the name of the class that's passed in:
class Foo:
#classmethod
def name(cls):
return cls.__name__
class Bar(Foo): pass
This returns the correct name in each case:
>>> Foo.name()
'Foo'
>>> Bar.name()
'Bar'
Related
I have a series of Python classes in a file. Some classes reference others.
My code is something like this:
class A():
pass
class B():
c = C()
class C():
pass
Trying to run that, I get NameError: name 'C' is not defined. Fair enough, but is there any way to make it work, or do I have to manually re-order my classes to accommodate? In C++, I can create a class prototype. Does Python have an equivalent?
(I'm actually playing with Django models, but I tried not complicate matters).
Actually, all of the above are great observations about Python, but none of them will solve your problem.
Django needs to introspect stuff.
The right way to do what you want is the following:
class Car(models.Model):
manufacturer = models.ForeignKey('Manufacturer')
# ...
class Manufacturer(models.Model):
# ...
Note the use of the class name as a string rather than the literal class reference. Django offers this alternative to deal with exactly the problem that Python doesn't provide forward declarations.
This question reminds me of the classic support question that you should always ask any customer with an issue: "What are you really trying to do?"
In Python you don't create a prototype per se, but you do need to understand the difference between "class attributes" and instance-level attributes. In the example you've shown above, you are declaring a class attribute on class B, not an instance-level attribute.
This is what you are looking for:
class B():
def __init__(self):
self.c = C()
This would solve your problem as presented (but I think you are really looking for an instance attribute as jholloway7 responded):
class A:
pass
class B:
pass
class C:
pass
B.c = C()
Python doesn't have prototypes or Ruby-style open classes. But if you really need them, you can write a metaclass that overloads new so that it does a lookup in the current namespace to see if the class already exists, and if it does returns the existing type object rather than creating a new one. I did something like this on a ORM I write a while back and it's worked very well.
A decade after the question is asked, I have encountered the same problem. While people suggest that the referencing should be done inside the init method, there are times when you need to access the data as a "class attribute" before the class is actually instantiated. For that reason, I have come up with a simple solution using a descriptor.
class A():
pass
class B():
class D(object):
def __init__(self):
self.c = None
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
if not self.c:
self.c = C()
return self.c
c = D()
class C():
pass
>>> B.c
>>> <__main__.C object at 0x10cc385f8>
All correct answers about class vs instance attributes. However, the reason you have an error is just the order of defining your classes. Of course class C has not yet been defined (as class-level code is executed immediately on import):
class A():
pass
class C():
pass
class B():
c = C()
Will work.
For a recursive function we can do:
def f(i):
if i<0: return
print i
f(i-1)
f(10)
However is there a way to do the following thing?
class A:
# do something
some_func(A)
# ...
If I understand your question correctly, you should be able to reference class A within class A by putting the type annotation in quotes. This is called forward reference.
class A:
# do something
def some_func(self, a: 'A')
# ...
See ref below
https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/3661
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJsrxBkV3kc
In Python you cannot reference the class in the class body, although in languages like Ruby you can do it.
In Python instead you can use a class decorator but that will be called once the class has initialized. Another way could be to use metaclass but it depends on what you are trying to achieve.
You can't with the specific syntax you're describing due to the time at which they are evaluated. The reason the example function given works is that the call to f(i-1) within the function body is because the name resolution of f is not performed until the function is actually called. At this point f exists within the scope of execution since the function has already been evaluated. In the case of the class example, the reference to the class name is looked up during while the class definition is still being evaluated. As such, it does not yet exist in the local scope.
Alternatively, the desired behavior can be accomplished using a metaclass like such:
class MetaA(type):
def __init__(cls):
some_func(cls)
class A(object):
__metaclass__=MetaA
# do something
# ...
Using this approach you can perform arbitrary operations on the class object at the time that the class is evaluated.
Maybe you could try calling __class__.
Right now I'm writing a code that calls a class method from within the same class.
It is working well so far.
I'm creating the class methods using something like:
#classmethod
def my_class_method(cls):
return None
And calling then by using:
x = __class__.my_class_method()
It seems most of the answers here are outdated. From python3.7:
from __future__ import annotations
Example:
$ cat rec.py
from __future__ import annotations
class MyList:
def __init__(self,e):
self.data = [e]
def add(self, e):
self.data.append(e)
return self
def score(self, other:MyList):
return len([e
for e in self.data
if e in other.data])
print(MyList(8).add(3).add(4).score(MyList(4).add(9).add(3)))
$ python3.7 rec.py
2
Nope. It works in a function because the function contents are executed at call-time. But the class contents are executed at define-time, at which point the class doesn't exist yet.
It's not normally a problem because you can hack further members into the class after defining it, so you can split up a class definition into multiple parts:
class A(object):
spam= 1
some_func(A)
A.eggs= 2
def _A_scramble(self):
self.spam=self.eggs= 0
A.scramble= _A_scramble
It is, however, pretty unusual to want to call a function on the class in the middle of its own definition. It's not clear what you're trying to do, but chances are you'd be better off with decorators (or the relatively new class decorators).
There isn't a way to do that within the class scope, not unless A was defined to be something else first (and then some_func(A) will do something entirely different from what you expect)
Unless you're doing some sort of stack inspection to add bits to the class, it seems odd why you'd want to do that. Why not just:
class A:
# do something
pass
some_func(A)
That is, run some_func on A after it's been made. Alternately, you could use a class decorator (syntax for it was added in 2.6) or metaclass if you wanted to modify class A somehow. Could you clarify your use case?
If you want to do just a little hacky thing do
class A(object):
...
some_func(A)
If you want to do something more sophisticated you can use a metaclass. A metaclass is responsible for manipulating the class object before it gets fully created. A template would be:
class AType(type):
def __new__(meta, name, bases, dct):
cls = super(AType, meta).__new__(meta, name, bases, dct)
some_func(cls)
return cls
class A(object):
__metaclass__ = AType
...
type is the default metaclass. Instances of metaclasses are classes so __new__ returns a modified instance of (in this case) A.
For more on metaclasses, see http://docs.python.org/reference/datamodel.html#customizing-class-creation.
If the goal is to call a function some_func with the class as an argument, one answer is to declare some_func as a class decorator. Note that the class decorator is called after the class is initialized. It will be passed the class that is being decorated as an argument.
def some_func(cls):
# Do something
print(f"The answer is {cls.x}")
return cls # Don't forget to return the class
#some_func
class A:
x = 1
If you want to pass additional arguments to some_func you have to return a function from the decorator:
def some_other_func(prefix, suffix):
def inner(cls):
print(f"{prefix} {cls.__name__} {suffix}")
return cls
return inner
#some_other_func("Hello", " and goodbye!")
class B:
x = 2
Class decorators can be composed, which results in them being called in the reverse order they are declared:
#some_func
#some_other_func("Hello", "and goodbye!")
class C:
x = 42
The result of which is:
# Hello C and goodbye!
# The answer is 42
What do you want to achieve? It's possible to access a class to tweak its definition using a metaclass, but it's not recommended.
Your code sample can be written simply as:
class A(object):
pass
some_func(A)
If you want to refer to the same object, just use 'self':
class A:
def some_func(self):
another_func(self)
If you want to create a new object of the same class, just do it:
class A:
def some_func(self):
foo = A()
If you want to have access to the metaclass class object (most likely not what you want), again, just do it:
class A:
def some_func(self):
another_func(A) # note that it reads A, not A()
Do remember that in Python, type hinting is just for auto-code completion therefore it helps IDE to infer types and warn user before runtime. In runtime, type hints almost never used(except in some cases) so you can do something like this:
from typing import Any, Optional, NewType
LinkListType = NewType("LinkList", object)
class LinkList:
value: Any
_next: LinkListType
def set_next(self, ll: LinkListType):
self._next = ll
if __name__ == '__main__':
r = LinkList()
r.value = 1
r.set_next(ll=LinkList())
print(r.value)
And as you can see IDE successfully infers it's type as LinkList:
Note: Since the next can be None, hinting this in the type would be better, I just didn't want to confuse OP.
class LinkList:
value: Any
next: Optional[LinkListType]
It's ok to reference the name of the class inside its body (like inside method definitions) if it's actually in scope... Which it will be if it's defined at top level. (In other cases probably not, due to Python scoping quirks!).
For on illustration of the scoping gotcha, try to instantiate Foo:
class Foo(object):
class Bar(object):
def __init__(self):
self.baz = Bar.baz
baz = 15
def __init__(self):
self.bar = Foo.Bar()
(It's going to complain about the global name 'Bar' not being defined.)
Also, something tells me you may want to look into class methods: docs on the classmethod function (to be used as a decorator), a relevant SO question. Edit: Ok, so this suggestion may not be appropriate at all... It's just that the first thing I thought about when reading your question was stuff like alternative constructors etc. If something simpler suits your needs, steer clear of #classmethod weirdness. :-)
Most code in the class will be inside method definitions, in which case you can simply use the name A.
This question already has answers here:
Is it possible to make abstract classes?
(14 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I use pep8 in visual studio code and I just tried to write some abstract classes.
The problem is I get the error [pylint] E1101:Instance of 'MyAbstract' has no 'child_method' member because pep8 does not realise that the method is well defined, but in the child classes.
To illustrate my problem here is a code snippet that is reducted to the minimum for clarity:
class MyAbstract:
def some_method(self):
newinfo = self.child_method()
# use newinfo
class MyChild(MyAbstract):
def child_method(self):
# Do something in a way
class OtherChild(MyAbstract):
def child_method(self):
# Do the same thing in a different way
So my questions are:
Is it ok to write classes like this?
How would you solve the error? (disable error, use another pattern, ...)
Clarification
The MyAbstract class shouldn't be instanciated, and the child classes will inherit the some_method. The idea is to use it on child class instances.
If you want MyAbstract to be an abstract class with abstract method child_method, Python has a way of expressing that in the abc module:
import abc
class MyAbstract(metaclass=abc.ABCMeta):
#abc.abstractmethod
def child_method(self):
pass
def some_method(self):
newinfo = self.child_method()
do_whatever_with(newinfo)
Your linter will no longer complain about the nonexistent method, and as a bonus, Python will detect attempts to instantiate a class with unimplemented abstract methods.
This question already has answers here:
Difference between #staticmethod and #classmethod
(35 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have written a code like this,and they are all works for me,but what is the difference? which is better?
class Demo1(object):
def __init__(self):
self.attr = self._make_attr()
def _make_attr(self):
#skip...
return attr
class Demo2(object):
def __init__(self):
self.attr = self._make_attr()
#staticmethod
def _make_attr():
#skip...
return attr
If both are working it means that inside make_attr you are not using self.
Making it a regular non-static method only makes sense if the code could logically depend on the instance and only incidentally doesn't depend on it in the current implementation (but for example it could depend on the instance in a class derived from this class).
When it comes to functionality, #staticmethod doesn't really matter. It's value is semantic - you are telling yourself, or other coders, that even though this function belongs to the namespace of the class, it isn't tied to any specific instance. This kind of tagging can be very useful when refactoring the code or when looking for bugs.
In either, attr is a local variable and does not depend on anything in the class. The results are the same. Marking it as static gives you the benefit of knowing this, and being able to access it directly, such as Demo2._make_attr() without having to create and instance of the class.
If you want it to acces the class variable, you would reference it as self.attr. But if you're doing this, then Demo2._make_attr() can no longer be static.
I have a series of Python classes in a file. Some classes reference others.
My code is something like this:
class A():
pass
class B():
c = C()
class C():
pass
Trying to run that, I get NameError: name 'C' is not defined. Fair enough, but is there any way to make it work, or do I have to manually re-order my classes to accommodate? In C++, I can create a class prototype. Does Python have an equivalent?
(I'm actually playing with Django models, but I tried not complicate matters).
Actually, all of the above are great observations about Python, but none of them will solve your problem.
Django needs to introspect stuff.
The right way to do what you want is the following:
class Car(models.Model):
manufacturer = models.ForeignKey('Manufacturer')
# ...
class Manufacturer(models.Model):
# ...
Note the use of the class name as a string rather than the literal class reference. Django offers this alternative to deal with exactly the problem that Python doesn't provide forward declarations.
This question reminds me of the classic support question that you should always ask any customer with an issue: "What are you really trying to do?"
In Python you don't create a prototype per se, but you do need to understand the difference between "class attributes" and instance-level attributes. In the example you've shown above, you are declaring a class attribute on class B, not an instance-level attribute.
This is what you are looking for:
class B():
def __init__(self):
self.c = C()
This would solve your problem as presented (but I think you are really looking for an instance attribute as jholloway7 responded):
class A:
pass
class B:
pass
class C:
pass
B.c = C()
Python doesn't have prototypes or Ruby-style open classes. But if you really need them, you can write a metaclass that overloads new so that it does a lookup in the current namespace to see if the class already exists, and if it does returns the existing type object rather than creating a new one. I did something like this on a ORM I write a while back and it's worked very well.
A decade after the question is asked, I have encountered the same problem. While people suggest that the referencing should be done inside the init method, there are times when you need to access the data as a "class attribute" before the class is actually instantiated. For that reason, I have come up with a simple solution using a descriptor.
class A():
pass
class B():
class D(object):
def __init__(self):
self.c = None
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
if not self.c:
self.c = C()
return self.c
c = D()
class C():
pass
>>> B.c
>>> <__main__.C object at 0x10cc385f8>
All correct answers about class vs instance attributes. However, the reason you have an error is just the order of defining your classes. Of course class C has not yet been defined (as class-level code is executed immediately on import):
class A():
pass
class C():
pass
class B():
c = C()
Will work.