I've got a class of the form:
class MyClass(object):
def curves(self):
def plot(self):
plot a graph
return something
return a pd.DataFrame
What I want to do is define something I can call with instance_of_my_class.curves.plot()
Do I need to define curves as an object to make this possible? I'm looking for the shortest way to do it, as this is syntactic sugar only.
Thanks.
In order to add a level of hierarchy, curves needs to be an actual object, yes. There is no difference between foo.curves.plot() and the following:
c = foo.curves
c.plot()
So foo.curves needs to be an object that has a plot method.
Also, since the method is called on the curves object, the method will be bound to that object. So unless you set it up that way, the curves object will not have access to your actual class.
You could pass the instance in the curves constructor though:
class Curves (object):
def __init__ (self, parent):
self.parent = parent
def plot (self):
self.parent._plot()
class MyClass (object):
def __init__ (self):
self.curves = Curves(self)
def _plot (self):
print('Actual plot implementation')
Then you can use it as foo.curves.plot():
>>> foo = MyClass()
>>> foo.curves.plot()
Actual plot implementation
You could also automate this a bit by using a descriptor for curves. For example, this is a possible solution:
class Accessor (object):
def __init__ (self, prefix = ''):
self.prefix = prefix
def __get__ (self, instance, owner):
return AccessorDelegate(instance, self.prefix)
class AccessorDelegate (object):
def __init__ (self, instance, prefix):
self.instance = instance
self.prefix = prefix
def __getattr__ (self, name):
return getattr(self.instance, self.prefix + name)
The benefit is obviously that you only need to define those a single time and then they’ll work for all your classes. You would use it like this in your class:
class MyClass (object):
curves = Accessor('_curves_')
def _curves_plot(self):
print('Implementation of curves.plot')
Used exactly as above:
>>> foo = MyClass()
>>> foo.curves.plot()
Implementation of curves.plot
Related
In python, how can I setup a parent class to track methods with a specific decorator for each child seperatly? A quick code snippet of what I am trying to do:
class Parent:
decorated_func_dict = {} #dictionary that stores name->func for decorated functions
def get_func_by_decorator_name(self, name):
#stuff
pass
class Child1(Parent):
#func_name("Bob")
def bob_func(self, *args):
pass
#func_name("Tom")
def func2(self, *args):
pass
class Child2(Parent):
#func_name("Bob")
def func_bob2(self, *args):
pass
foo = Child1()
bar = Child2()
foo.get_func_by_decorator_name("Bob")
#Returns foo.bob_func
bar.get_func_by_decorator_name("Bob")
#Returns bar.func_bob2
Using Python 3.9.
A decorator is not something that makes a function look pretty. It is a callable that ingests an object (not only functions), does some arbitrary operations, and returns a replacement object.
In this case, your decorator should be storing references to function objects in a dictionary somewhere. The problem is that you won't be able to reference the class in which the functions are defined until it is created, which happens well after the decorator is run. You can avoid this by storing the name of the class as well as the name of the function.
The final step here is to properly bind the function objects to methods on the right object. That is something that get_func_by_decorated_name can do for you.
In sum, you can write something like this:
decorated_func_dict = {}
def func_name(cls_name, func_name):
def decorator(func):
decorated_func_dict.setdefault(cls_name, {})[func_name] = func
return func
return decorator
class Parent:
def get_func_by_decorator_name(self, name):
return decorated_func_dict[type(self).__name__][name].__get__(self)
class Child1(Parent):
#func_name("Child1", "Bob")
def bob_func(self, *args):
pass
#func_name("Child1", "Tom")
def func2(self, *args):
pass
class Child2(Parent):
#func_name("Child2", "Bob")
def func_bob2(self, *args):
pass
And indeed you get:
>>> foo.get_func_by_decorator_name("Bob")
<bound method Child1.bob_func of <__main__.Child1 object at 0x000001D58181E070>>
>>> bar.get_func_by_decorator_name("Bob")
<bound method Child2.func_bob2 of <__main__.Child2 object at 0x000001D582041F10>>
Another way to do this is to give your functions a name attribute, which you can then aggregate into a mapping in __init_subclass__ in Parent. This allows you to make an interface a bit closer to what you originally intended:
def func_name(func_name):
def decorator(func):
func.special_name = func_name
return func
return decorator
class Parent:
def __init_subclass__(cls):
cls.decorated_func_dict = {}
for item in cls.__dict__.values():
if hasattr(item, 'special_name'):
cls.decorated_func_dict[item.special_name] = item
del item.special_name # optional
def get_func_by_decorator_name(self, name):
return self.decorated_func_dict[name].__get__(self)
class Child1(Parent):
#func_name("Bob")
def bob_func(self, *args):
pass
#func_name("Tom")
def func2(self, *args):
pass
class Child2(Parent):
#func_name("Bob")
def func_bob2(self, *args):
pass
The results are identical to the first example.
The easiest way would of course be to get access to the child's namespace before the class is created, e.g. with a metaclass.
class TextToNumbers():
def __init__(self, number):
self.text = str(number)
self.chunks = parse_text_to_chunks(self.text)
def parse_text_to_chunks(text_to_parse):
#stuff
This is an example of a class I'm building. I want it to define some variables with class methods on initialization. (at least I think that is what I want) I think if I talk about my end goal it is that I have a set of complex information that needs to be available about a class directly at initialization. How do I call a class method at initialization, to define a class variable?
If you are looking for a way to call an instance method during initialization, you can use self to call that like this
class TextToNumbers():
def __init__(self, number):
self.text = str(number)
self.chunks = self.parse_text_to_chunks(self.text)
print self.chunks
def parse_text_to_chunks(self, text_to_parse):
# 1st parameter passed is the current INSTANCE on which this method is called
self.var1 = text_to_parse[1:]
return self.var1
TextToNumbers(123)
And I believe this is what you really need. But if you want a class method
class TextToNumbers():
def __init__(self, number):
self.text = str(number)
self.chunks = TextToNumbers.parse_text_to_chunks(self.text)
print self.chunks
#classmethod
def parse_text_to_chunks(cls, text_to_parse):
# 1st parameter passed is the current CLASS on which this method is called
cls.var1 = text_to_parse[1:]
return cls.var1
TextToNumbers(123)
But there is no point in creating a class method to initialize a class variable in __init__, since a class variable is shared by all the instances of the class, calling from __init__ will overwrite everytime an object is created.
I'm just getting to grips with decorators in Python and using them to add callbacks to some instance variables using the following simple pattern:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self._var = 0
self.var_callbacks = []
#property
def var(self):
return self._var
#var.setter
def var(self, x):
self._var = x
for f in self.var_callbacks:
f(x)
The property decorator is a neat way of allowing me to introduce callbacks where necessary without changing the class interface. However, after the third or fourth variable it's making the code a bit repetitive.
Is there a way to refactor this pattern into something along the following:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.var = 0
enable_callback(self, 'var', 'var_callbacks')
You'll need to set the property on the class (since it is a descriptor), so using a enable_callback call in the initializer is not going to work.
You could use a class decorator to set the properties from a pattern:
def callback_properties(callbacks_attribute, *names):
def create_callback_property(name):
def getter(self):
return getattr(self, '_' + name)
def setter(self, value):
setattr(self, '_' + name, value)
for f in getattr(self, callbacks_attribute):
f(value)
return property(getter, setter)
def add_callback_properties(cls):
for name in names:
setattr(cls, name, create_callback_property(name)
return cls
return add_callback_properties
Then use that as:
#add_callback_properties('var_callbacks', 'var1', 'var2')
class A(object):
# everything else
Have a look at the Python descriptor protocol. In essence, you can define a class that handles the getting, setting and deleting of a property. So you could define a descriptor that runs your callbacks on setting the attribute.
Descriptors are regular classes, and can be parameterized. So you could implement a descriptor that takes the destination variable its constructor. Something like the following:
class A(object):
var = CallbackDescriptor('var')
foo = CallbackDescriptor('foo')
I implemented a metaclass that tears down the class attributes for classes created with it and builds methods from the data from those arguments, then attaches those dynamically created methods directly to the class object (the class in question allows for easy definition of web form objects for use in a web testing framework). It has been working just fine, but now I have a need to add a more complex type of method, which, to try to keep things clean, I implemented as a callable class. Unfortunately, when I try to call the callable class on an instance, it is treated as a class attribute instead of an instance method, and when called, only receives its own self. I can see why this happens, but I was hoping someone might have a better solution than the ones I've come up with. Simplified illustration of the problem:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, name, val):
self.name = name
self.val = val
self.__name__ = name + '_foo'
self.name = name
# This doesn't work as I'd wish
def __call__(self, instance):
return self.name + str(self.val + instance.val)
def get_methods(name, foo_val):
foo = Foo(name, foo_val)
def bar(self):
return name + str(self.val + 2)
bar.__name__ = name + '_bar'
return foo, bar
class Baz(object):
def __init__(self, val):
self.val = val
for method in get_methods('biff', 1):
setattr(Baz, method.__name__, method)
baz = Baz(10)
# baz.val == 10
# baz.biff_foo() == 'biff11'
# baz.biff_bar() == 'biff12'
I've thought of:
Using a descriptor, but that seems way more complex than is necessary here
Using a closure inside of a factory for foo, but nested closures are ugly and messy replacements for objects most of the time, imo
Wrapping the Foo instance in a method that passes its self down to the Foo instance as instance, basically a decorator, that is what I actually add to Baz, but that seems superfluous and basically just a more complicated way of doing the same thing as (2)
Is there a better way then any of these to try to accomplish what I want, or should I just bite the bullet and use some closure factory type pattern?
One way to do this is to attach the callable objects to the class as unbound methods. The method constructor will work with arbitrary callables (i.e. instances of classes with a __call__() method)—not just functions.
from types import MethodType
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, name, val):
self.name = name
self.val = val
self.__name__ = name + '_foo'
self.name = name
def __call__(self, instance):
return self.name + str(self.val + instance.val)
class Baz(object):
def __init__(self, val):
self.val = val
Baz.biff = MethodType(Foo("biff", 42), None, Baz)
b = Baz(13)
print b.biff()
>>> biff55
In Python 3, there's no such thing as an unbound instance method (classes just have regular functions attached) so you might instead make your Foo class a descriptor that returns a bound instance method by giving it a __get__() method. (Actually, that approach will work in Python 2.x as well, but the above will perform a little better.)
from types import MethodType
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, name, val):
self.name = name
self.val = val
self.__name__ = name + '_foo'
self.name = name
def __call__(self, instance):
return self.name + str(self.val + instance.val)
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
return MethodType(self, instance) if instance else self
# Python 2: MethodType(self, instance, owner)
class Baz(object):
def __init__(self, val):
self.val = val
Baz.biff = Foo("biff", 42)
b = Baz(13)
print b.biff()
>>> biff55
The trouble you're running into is that your object is not being bound as a method of the Baz class you're putting it in. This is because it is not a descriptor, which regular functions are!
You can fix this by adding a simple __get__ method to your Foo class that makes it into a method when it's accessed as a descriptor:
import types
class Foo(object):
# your other stuff here
def __get__(self, obj, objtype=None):
if obj is None:
return self # unbound
else:
return types.MethodType(self, obj) # bound to obj
Is it possible, when instantiating an object, to pass-in a class which the object should derive from?
For instance:
class Red(object):
def x(self):
print '#F00'
class Blue(object):
def x(self):
print '#00F'
class Circle(object):
def __init__(self, parent):
# here, we set Bar's parent to `parent`
self.x()
class Square(object):
def __init__(self, parent):
# here, we set Bar's parent to `parent`
self.x()
self.sides = 4
red_circle = Circle(parent=Red)
blue_circle = Circle(parent=Blue)
blue_square = Square(parent=Blue)
Which would have similar effects as:
class Circle(Red):
def __init__(self):
self.x()
without, however, affecting other instances of Circle.
Perhaps what you are looking for is a class factory:
#!/usr/bin/env python
class Foo(object):
def x(self):
print('y')
def Bar(parent=Foo):
class Adoptee(parent):
def __init__(self):
self.x()
return Adoptee()
obj=Bar(parent=Foo)
I agree with #AntsAasma. You should probably consider using dependency injection. Atleast in the example given (which I'm sure is greatly simplified to illustrate your problem), the color of a shape is better represented by via a has-a relationship rather than with a is-a relationship.
You could implement this via passing in the desired color object to the constructor, storing a reference to it, and delegating the function call to this object. This greatly simplifies the implementation while still retaining the desired behavior. See an example here:
class Red(object):
def x(self):
print '#F00'
class Blue(object):
def x(self):
print '#00F'
class Shape(object):
def __init__(self,color):
self._color=color
def x(self):
return self._color.x()
class Circle(Shape):
def __init__(self, color):
Shape.__init__(self,color)
self.x()
class Square(Shape):
def __init__(self, color):
Shape.__init__(self,color)
self.x()
self.sides = 4
red_circle = Circle(color=Red())
blue_circle = Circle(color=Blue())
blue_square = Square(color=Blue())
Edit: Fixed names of constructor arguments in sample code
It sounds like you are trying to use inheritance for something that it isn't meant for. If you would explain why you want to do this, maybe a more idiomatic and robust way to achieve your goals can be found.
If you really need it, then you could use type constructor, e.g. within a factory function (or inside __new__ method, but this is probably safer approach):
class Foo(object):
def x(self):
print 'y'
class Bar(object):
def __init__(self):
self.x()
def magic(cls, parent, *args, **kwargs):
new = type(cls.__name__, (parent,), cls.__dict__.copy())
return new(*args, **kwargs)
obj = magic(Bar, parent = Foo)
As everybody else says, that's a pretty weird usage, but, if you really want it, it's surely feasible (except for the mysterious Bar that you pull out of thin air in comments;-). For example:
class Circle(object):
def __init__(self, parent):
self.__class__ = type('Circle', (self.__class__, parent), {})
self.x()
This gives each instance of Circle its own personal class (all named Circle, but all different) -- this part is actually the key reason this idiom is sometimes very useful (when you want a "per-instance customized special method" with new-style classes: since the special method always gets looked up on the class, to customize it per-instance you need each instance to have a distinct class!-). If you'd rather do as much class-sharing as feasible you may want a little memoizing factory function to help:
_memo = {}
def classFor(*bases):
if bases in _memo: return _memo[bases]
name = '_'.join(c.__name__ for c in bases)
c = _memo[bases] = type(name, bases, {})
return c
(here I'm also using a different approach to the resulting class's name, using class names such as Circle_Red and Circle_Blue for your examples rather than just Circle). Then:
class Circle(object):
def __init__(self, parent):
self.__class__ = classFor(Circle, parent)
self.x()
So the technique is smooth and robust, but I still don't see it as a good match to the use case you exemplify with. However, it might be useful in other use cases, so I'm showing it.