I have two very basic object oriented question
1) Can we modify a class variable with member function?
For example
class test:
'''test class'''
idd=0
def __init__(self,mark,subject):
self.markk=mark
self.subjectt=subject
def display(self):
print "the display is",self.markk,self.subjectt;
stud1=test(30,'maths')
stud2=test(40,'english')
when i tried to modify class variable idd using the object stud1.idd=9;, the variable didnt modified. test.idd=9 modified the variable.
Can someone explain me why it is not possible to modify a class vars from a object?
2) Also in the above snippet, when I added a keyword global with the class var idd like
class test:
'''test class'''
global idd;
idd=0;
print test.idd
it threw error like name class test don't have attribute idd.
But when I commented out the global idd, it displayed value.
So is global keyword not supported in class?
can someone help me to get some idea on these two question as this is my basic step to object oriented concept..
I think that you're not understanding that python looks up values by looking at a "chain" of objects1. When you do value = self.foo, python will first look for foo on the instance. Then it will look on the class. Then it will look on the super-classes (in their "Method Resolution Order").
When you write:
self.foo = 'bar'
Python simply puts a foo on the instance. So now subsequent lookups on that instance will give you 'bar' even if foo is also defined on the class. Also note that since foo gets put on the instance, no changes are visible on the class.
If you want to update the class in a particular method, you might be able to use a classmethod:
class Foo(object):
idd = 0
#classmethod
def increment_idd(cls):
cls.idd += 1
f = Foo()
f.increment_idd()
print(Foo.idd)
print(f.idd)
This doesn't work if you need access to self however. In that case, you'll need to get a reference to the class from the instance:
class Foo(object):
idd = 0
def increment_idd(self):
cls = type(self)
cls.idd += 1
f = Foo()
f.increment_idd()
print(Foo.idd)
print(f.idd)
1If you know javascript, it's actually not too much different than javascript's prototypical inheritance
As long as it is a public variable you should be able to.
Related
I was reading about the #staticmethod in Python when I came across tge following code:
class MyClass:
my_var = 0
#staticmethod
def static_method():
MyClass.my_var += 1
I just don't understand exactly why you can write a code like this... Doesn't it defeat the purpose of this method to be static?
I get it that there's also the fact that the first parameter won't be a class/instance reference, but... Still weird to call this decorator like that if I still can access class variables, no?
And if I can access class variables, why everywhere I read about it says that I cannot, even though I just clearly did with the code above? Is it just because I'm doing it wrong?
The idea that a static method can't modify class state is based on the idea that the static method doesn't receive a reference to the class as an argument like a class method does. However, in this case, a reference to the class is provided as a hard-coded value.
One reason for defining a static method rather than a class method is to guarantee that you modify the attribute of a specific class, rather than a possible subclass.
class A:
my_var = 0
#classmethod
def foo(cls):
cls.my_var += 1
#staticmethod
def bar():
A.my_var += 1
class B(A):
my_var = 0
A call to B.foo will modify B.my_var, not A.my_var. A call to B.bar will modify A.my_var.
Pretty much what the title says but I will put some example code to clarify.
I would like to know why I can assign Repair, a reference to the class, to an instance variable but not to a class variable
class NotWorkingDefinitions:
# This will give unresolved reference
a = Repair
class WorkingDefitinions:
def __init__(self):
# This is fine
self.a = Repair
class Repair():
def __init__(self):
whatever = 10
def dosmt(self):
print("staring at a wall")
EDIT: The full answer is given over the different comments. It wasn't about not being able to assign to a class variable. It is just that class variables are immediately resolved and instance variables are not. The latter makes that defining Repair() class after WorkingDefinitions is not an issue.
The above code works if you move Repair to the top. The content of a class is evaluated from top to bottom, so any referenced classes must be defined before actually referencing them.
An example that explores this a bit more in terms of runtime and load-time could be:
# this will not work because the B class is referenced before definition
class A(object):
b_class = B
class B(object):
pass
Alternatively,
# this will work because B is defined first and used later
class B(object):
pass
class A(object):
b_class = B
But both of the examples above do not have a runtime-specific behavior. If instead you wanted A to use B and you had a really good reason to define A first, then you could get away with
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
# bind the B class to each instance of A
self.b_class = B
class B(object):
pass
a = A()
a.b_class
> __main__.B
But the short answer is you must define a variable before using it and when you bind a variable directly to a class (in the class definition, not a method) it must be defined.
The full answer is given over the different comments. It is not about not being able to assign to a class variable. It is that class variables are immediately evaluated and instance variables are not. Instance variables will be evaluated during initiation. The latter makes that defining Repair() class after WorkingDefinitions is not an issue.
I want to pass a method foo of an instance of a class A to another function run_function. The method foo will use instance variables of its class A.
Here is a minimal example, in which the instance variable of A is simply self.a_var, and foo just prints that variable.
class A:
def __init__(self,a_var):
self.a_var=a_var
def foo(self):
print(self.a_var)
class B:
def __init__(self, A):
self.A=A
# EDIT (comment to compile)
self.A.do_something()
def run_function(self):
self.A.foo()
def run_function_2(self, bar):
bar()
myA = A(42)
myA.foo()
# Current implementation
myB=B(myA)
myB.run_function()
# Better(?) implementation
myB.run_function_2(myA.foo)
At the moment I pass the instance myA of class A to the instance of B and explicitly call self.A.foo(). This forces the name of the function of Ato be foo. Which is stupid.
The better (?) implementation passes the function of the instance to run_function2. This works, but I am not sure if this is "safe".
Question:
Are there any loopholes that I don't see at the moment?
The important part is, that the method foo, that is passed, needs to access instance variables of the (its) class instance. So, will foo that is called inside run_function_2 always have access to all instance variables of myA?
Is there a better way to implement this?
EDIT: I forgot to add, that class B will always have an instance of A, since it has to do_something with that instance. Maybe that will change something(?). Sorry!
For your second implementation, have you considered the following:
>>> myAa = A(42)
>>> myAb = A(43)
>>> myB = B(myAb)
>>> myB.run_function_2(myAa.foo)
42
This might not be what you want. How about using getattr() and just passing in the desired method name:
>>> class C:
... def __init__(self, A):
... self.A = A
... def run_fct(self, bar):
... fct = getattr(self.A, bar)
... fct()
...
>>> myC = C(myAa)
>>> myC.run_fct('foo')
42
To answer your questions:
Any function executed in the context of an object instance will have access to the instance variables.
There may be a better way to implement this, you could try defining an interface for class A and other classes that might be like it. The you know that the function will always be called foo(). If not, I'd question why it is you need to have some object call an arbitrary method on another object. If you can give more concrete examples about what you're trying to do it would help.
The main difference between run_function and run_function_2 is that the former calls foo on the object that was given to the B() constructor. run_function_2 is independent of what object is saved as self.A; it just calls the function/method you give it. For example
class A:
def __init__(self,a_var):
self.a_var=a_var
def foo(self):
print(self.a_var)
class B:
def __init__(self, A):
self.A=A
def run_function(self):
self.A.foo()
def run_function_2(self, bar):
bar()
myA = A(42)
myB = B(myA)
myA2 = A(3.14)
myB.run_function()
myB.run_function_2(myA.foo)
myB.run_function_2(myA2.foo)
Output
42
42
3.14
Are there any loopholes that I don't see at the moment?
These two ways of calling methods are fine. Though I agree that function_run_2 is more convenient since it doesn't fix the method name, it makes you ask... what's the purpose of giving an A object to the B constructor in the first place if it's never used?
The important part is, that the method foo, that is passed, needs to access instance variables of the (its) class instance. So, will foo that is called inside run_function_2 always have access to all instance variables of myA?
Yes. run_function_2 arguments requires a function. In this case, you pass myA.foo, an object myA's method defined in class A. When you call foo inside run_function_2, you are only dealing with attributes variables of the instance myA; this is the idea of encapsulation in classes.
Is there a better way to implement this?
Answering also your question on safety, it's perfectly safe. Functions and methods are objects in Python, and they can be passed around like values. You're basically leaning on the idea of function currying or partial functions. See How do I pass a method as a parameter in Python. These two ways are fine.
I don't think it is because of the scope of the function, but I get a
Unresolved reference at get_all_predicates(examples).count(predicate_list[0])
inside get_entropy_of_attributes(examples, predicate_list) function in my class Tree:
class Tree:
def get_examples(examples, attributes):
for value in examples:
yield dict(zip(attributes, value.strip().replace(" ", "").split(',')))
def get_all_predicates(examples):
return [d['Predicate'] for d in examples]
def get_entropy_of_attributes(examples, predicate_list):
get_all_predicates(examples).count(predicate_list[0])
return 0
examples = list(get_examples(all_examples, name_of_attributes))
predicate_list = list(set(get_all_predicates(examples)))
get_entropy_of_attributes(examples, predicate_list)
all_examples is a list of dictionary and name_of_attributes is a list, that holds values imported from a text file.
all_examples = [{'P_Length': '1.4', 'P_Width': '0.2', 'Predicate': 'I-setosa', 'Sepal_Width': '3.5', 'S_Length': '5.1'}, ...]
name_of_attributes = ["Check","P-Width"]
Any help?
Classes do not have scopes, only namespaces. This means that functions defined within them cannot see other class variables automatically.
class Foo(object):
var = 1 # lets create a class variable
def foo():
print(var) # this doesn't work!
To access a class variable, you need use attribute syntax: either Foo.var (to access via the class) or, if you're writing an instance method, with self.var (to access via the current instance, which will be passed in as the first argument).
class Bar(object):
var = 1
def bar1():
print(Bar.var) # works
def bar2(self):
print(self.var) # also works, if called on an instance, e.g. `Bar().bar2()`
With this kind of setup you can almost fix your current code (but not quite).
def get_entropy_of_attributes(examples, predicate_list):
Tree.get_all_predicates(examples).count(predicate_list[0]) # name the class
return 0
If you call this after the class is fully initialized, it will work without any exceptions (though it's implementation seems a bit nonsensical). However, it doesn't work when you call it to define a class variable, as your current code does. That's because the class object is only created and bound to the class name after all of the class body has been run.
I think the fix for that is probably to redesign your class in a more conventional way. Rather than having class variables set up based on various globals (like all_examples), you should probably create instances of your class by passing in arguments to the constructor and making the other variables you calculate from them instance attributes. I'd try to write it out, but frankly I don't understand what you're doing well enough.
If you want to call class methods, you have to call them with self, e.g.
class myClass:
def __init__(self):
pass
def get_all_predicates(self):
print('asd')
def do_something(self):
self.get_all_predicates() # working
get_all_predicates() # → Unresolved reference
test = myClass()
test.do_something()
See this link for examples for Python classes.
While researching about python class attribute and instance attribute, I came to know that it's not possible to create object attribute outside object methods (or may be class method). Like code below will generate an "NameError" in python.
class test(object):
def __init__(self):
self.lst = []
self.str = 'xyz'
Why python doesn't allow this? I'm not questioning language creator's decision, but any reason behind this. Like, is it technically incorrect or any other disadvantage of this behavior.
You are defining a class, so there is no instance to point to outside methods. Drop the `self:
class test(object):
def __init__(self):
self.lst = []
str = 'xyz'
self points to the instance, not the class. You either need to create an instance and assign directly to attributes (test().str = 'xyz') or you need to be inside a method (when self can actually refer to an instance).
self is not a special name in python, you could use \
class test(object):
def __init__(foo):
foo.lst = []
If you want. Every method of a class gets the instance explicitly passed to it as the first parameter, you can call it whatever you want. Trying to access a parameter outside the scope of the method obviously won't work.