Do I have to implement all abstract methods in python 2.7? - python

I'm adapting the text adventure game tutorial, github, to fit python 2.7. I'm using the PyCharm 4.5.4 community edition for my IDE. When I don't override a parent method it gives me an error:
Class WolfRoom must implement all abstract methods
At first to get rid of this error I defined the missing method def modify_player(self, the_player): as pass but I quickly realized I was overriding the method with nothing which isn't what I wanted. Now if I just remove the method from the WolfRoom class I get an IDE error, as seen above, but it appears to work just fine when I run my game. Should I leave this method out or define it and use super()?
Here are some code snippets:
class MapTile(object):
"""The base class for all Map Tiles"""
def __init__(self, x, y):
"""Creates a new tile.
Attributes:
:param x: The x coordinate of the tile.
:param y: The y coordinate of the tile.
"""
self.x = x
self.y = y
def intro_text(self):
"""Information to be displayed when the player moves into this tile."""
raise NotImplementedError()
def modify_player(self, the_player):
"""Process actions that change the state of the player."""
raise NotImplementedError()
def adjacent_moves(self):
"""Returns all move actions for adjacent tiles."""
moves = []
if world.tile_exists(self.x + 1, self.y):
moves.append(actions.MoveEast())
if world.tile_exists(self.x - 1, self.y):
moves.append(actions.MoveWest())
if world.tile_exists(self.x, self.y - 1):
moves.append(actions.MoveNorth())
if world.tile_exists(self.x, self.y + 1):
moves.append(actions.MoveSouth())
return moves
def available_actions(self):
"""Returns all of the available actions in this room"""
moves = self.adjacent_moves()
moves.append(actions.ViewInventory())
return moves
...
class EnemyRoom(MapTile):
def __init__(self, x, y, enemy):
self.enemy = enemy
super(EnemyRoom, self).__init__(x, y)
def intro_text(self):
pass
def modify_player(self, the_player):
if self.enemy.is_alive():
the_player.hp = the_player.hp - self.enemy.damage
print("Enemy does {} damage. You have {} HP remaining.".format(self.enemy.damage, the_player.hp))
def available_actions(self):
if self.enemy.is_alive():
return [actions.Flee(tile=self), actions.Attack(enemy=self.enemy)]
else:
return self.adjacent_moves()
...
class WolfRoom(EnemyRoom):
def __init__(self, x, y):
super(WolfRoom, self).__init__(x, y, enemies.Wolf())
def intro_text(self):
if self.enemy.is_alive():
return """
A grey wolf blocks your path. His lips curl to expose canines as white as
the nights sky. He crouches and prepares to lunge.
"""
else:
return"""
The corpse of a grey wolf lays rotting on the ground.
"""

I believe this is actually due to the PyCharm inspector making an error, or at least a dubious decision regarding PEP 8 style, when looking to see if there are any non-implemented methods which will raise a NotImplementedError. Consider this simpler example which is very similar:
class Base(object):
def foo(self):
raise NotImplementedError
def bar(self):
return 0
class Child(Base):
def foo(self):
return 0
class GrandChild(Child):
def bar(self):
return 1
my_grand_child = GrandChild()
print my_grand_child.foo()
The above code successfully prints a 0 to the output, because when Python can't find the implementation of foo() in GrandChild it looks up the inheritance chain and finds it in Child. However, for some reason the PyCharm inspector expects all classes which raise NotImplementedError to be implemented in ALL levels of the inheritance chain.
If you were to follow this style in programs with large inheritance structures, you would find yourself being extremely verbose by implementing methods and making calls to super all throughout the chain, when it simply isn't required. Personally, I just ignore the error, and think that PyCharm should be updated to not show it if it finds the method implemented in any superclass of the class it is inspecting.

Simply raising NotImplementedError from a method doesn't quite make it an abstract method. You can still instantiate a class that doesn't override all its inherited pseudo-abstract methods, you just can't call the methods. (Or rather, you can even call them, if you catch the NotImplementedError in a try statement.)
You can use abc.ABCMeta to make a class truly abstract; the metaclass machinery prevents you from even instantiating a class with an un-overriden abstract method.
import abc
class MapTile(object):
"""The base class for all Map Tiles"""
__metadata__ = abc.ABCMeta
def __init__(self, x, y):
"""Creates a new tile.
Attributes:
:param x: The x coordinate of the tile.
:param y: The y coordinate of the tile.
"""
self.x = x
self.y = y
#abc.abstractmethod
def intro_text(self):
"""Information to be displayed when the player moves into this tile."""
pass
# etc.

Yes, you have to implement all abstract methods in Python to instantiate them as objects (the ones marked with #abstractmethod, etc). How you implement these, however, are completely up to you. If you're not going to be instantiating, you don't need to override all of them.
For example:
class Animal(object):
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
#abstractmethod
def eat(thing):
pass
class Slug(Animal):
def eat(thing):
pass
What this means is that every instantiatable Animal must be able to eat, but Slugs do nothing when they eat.

Related

Function overload errors [duplicate]

I know that Python does not support method overloading, but I've run into a problem that I can't seem to solve in a nice Pythonic way.
I am making a game where a character needs to shoot a variety of bullets, but how do I write different functions for creating these bullets? For example suppose I have a function that creates a bullet travelling from point A to B with a given speed. I would write a function like this:
def add_bullet(sprite, start, headto, speed):
# Code ...
But I want to write other functions for creating bullets like:
def add_bullet(sprite, start, direction, speed):
def add_bullet(sprite, start, headto, spead, acceleration):
def add_bullet(sprite, script): # For bullets that are controlled by a script
def add_bullet(sprite, curve, speed): # for bullets with curved paths
# And so on ...
And so on with many variations. Is there a better way to do it without using so many keyword arguments cause its getting kinda ugly fast. Renaming each function is pretty bad too because you get either add_bullet1, add_bullet2, or add_bullet_with_really_long_name.
To address some answers:
No I can't create a Bullet class hierarchy because thats too slow. The actual code for managing bullets is in C and my functions are wrappers around C API.
I know about the keyword arguments but checking for all sorts of combinations of parameters is getting annoying, but default arguments help allot like acceleration=0
What you are asking for is called multiple dispatch. See Julia language examples which demonstrates different types of dispatches.
However, before looking at that, we'll first tackle why overloading is not really what you want in Python.
Why Not Overloading?
First, one needs to understand the concept of overloading and why it's not applicable to Python.
When working with languages that can discriminate data types at
compile-time, selecting among the alternatives can occur at
compile-time. The act of creating such alternative functions for
compile-time selection is usually referred to as overloading a
function. (Wikipedia)
Python is a dynamically typed language, so the concept of overloading simply does not apply to it. However, all is not lost, since we can create such alternative functions at run-time:
In programming languages that defer data type identification until
run-time the selection among alternative
functions must occur at run-time, based on the dynamically determined
types of function arguments. Functions whose alternative
implementations are selected in this manner are referred to most
generally as multimethods. (Wikipedia)
So we should be able to do multimethods in Python—or, as it is alternatively called: multiple dispatch.
Multiple dispatch
The multimethods are also called multiple dispatch:
Multiple dispatch or multimethods is the feature of some
object-oriented programming languages in which a function or method
can be dynamically dispatched based on the run time (dynamic) type of
more than one of its arguments. (Wikipedia)
Python does not support this out of the box1, but, as it happens, there is an excellent Python package called multipledispatch that does exactly that.
Solution
Here is how we might use multipledispatch2 package to implement your methods:
>>> from multipledispatch import dispatch
>>> from collections import namedtuple
>>> from types import * # we can test for lambda type, e.g.:
>>> type(lambda a: 1) == LambdaType
True
>>> Sprite = namedtuple('Sprite', ['name'])
>>> Point = namedtuple('Point', ['x', 'y'])
>>> Curve = namedtuple('Curve', ['x', 'y', 'z'])
>>> Vector = namedtuple('Vector', ['x','y','z'])
>>> #dispatch(Sprite, Point, Vector, int)
... def add_bullet(sprite, start, direction, speed):
... print("Called Version 1")
...
>>> #dispatch(Sprite, Point, Point, int, float)
... def add_bullet(sprite, start, headto, speed, acceleration):
... print("Called version 2")
...
>>> #dispatch(Sprite, LambdaType)
... def add_bullet(sprite, script):
... print("Called version 3")
...
>>> #dispatch(Sprite, Curve, int)
... def add_bullet(sprite, curve, speed):
... print("Called version 4")
...
>>> sprite = Sprite('Turtle')
>>> start = Point(1,2)
>>> direction = Vector(1,1,1)
>>> speed = 100 #km/h
>>> acceleration = 5.0 #m/s**2
>>> script = lambda sprite: sprite.x * 2
>>> curve = Curve(3, 1, 4)
>>> headto = Point(100, 100) # somewhere far away
>>> add_bullet(sprite, start, direction, speed)
Called Version 1
>>> add_bullet(sprite, start, headto, speed, acceleration)
Called version 2
>>> add_bullet(sprite, script)
Called version 3
>>> add_bullet(sprite, curve, speed)
Called version 4
1. Python 3 currently supports single dispatch
2. Take care not to use multipledispatch in a multi-threaded environment or you will get weird behavior.
Python does support "method overloading" as you present it. In fact, what you just describe is trivial to implement in Python, in so many different ways, but I would go with:
class Character(object):
# your character __init__ and other methods go here
def add_bullet(self, sprite=default, start=default,
direction=default, speed=default, accel=default,
curve=default):
# do stuff with your arguments
In the above code, default is a plausible default value for those arguments, or None. You can then call the method with only the arguments you are interested in, and Python will use the default values.
You could also do something like this:
class Character(object):
# your character __init__ and other methods go here
def add_bullet(self, **kwargs):
# here you can unpack kwargs as (key, values) and
# do stuff with them, and use some global dictionary
# to provide default values and ensure that ``key``
# is a valid argument...
# do stuff with your arguments
Another alternative is to directly hook the desired function directly to the class or instance:
def some_implementation(self, arg1, arg2, arg3):
# implementation
my_class.add_bullet = some_implementation_of_add_bullet
Yet another way is to use an abstract factory pattern:
class Character(object):
def __init__(self, bfactory, *args, **kwargs):
self.bfactory = bfactory
def add_bullet(self):
sprite = self.bfactory.sprite()
speed = self.bfactory.speed()
# do stuff with your sprite and speed
class pretty_and_fast_factory(object):
def sprite(self):
return pretty_sprite
def speed(self):
return 10000000000.0
my_character = Character(pretty_and_fast_factory(), a1, a2, kw1=v1, kw2=v2)
my_character.add_bullet() # uses pretty_and_fast_factory
# now, if you have another factory called "ugly_and_slow_factory"
# you can change it at runtime in python by issuing
my_character.bfactory = ugly_and_slow_factory()
# In the last example you can see abstract factory and "method
# overloading" (as you call it) in action
You can use "roll-your-own" solution for function overloading. This one is copied from Guido van Rossum's article about multimethods (because there is little difference between multimethods and overloading in Python):
registry = {}
class MultiMethod(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
self.typemap = {}
def __call__(self, *args):
types = tuple(arg.__class__ for arg in args) # a generator expression!
function = self.typemap.get(types)
if function is None:
raise TypeError("no match")
return function(*args)
def register(self, types, function):
if types in self.typemap:
raise TypeError("duplicate registration")
self.typemap[types] = function
def multimethod(*types):
def register(function):
name = function.__name__
mm = registry.get(name)
if mm is None:
mm = registry[name] = MultiMethod(name)
mm.register(types, function)
return mm
return register
The usage would be
from multimethods import multimethod
import unittest
# 'overload' makes more sense in this case
overload = multimethod
class Sprite(object):
pass
class Point(object):
pass
class Curve(object):
pass
#overload(Sprite, Point, Direction, int)
def add_bullet(sprite, start, direction, speed):
# ...
#overload(Sprite, Point, Point, int, int)
def add_bullet(sprite, start, headto, speed, acceleration):
# ...
#overload(Sprite, str)
def add_bullet(sprite, script):
# ...
#overload(Sprite, Curve, speed)
def add_bullet(sprite, curve, speed):
# ...
Most restrictive limitations at the moment are:
methods are not supported, only functions that are not class members;
inheritance is not handled;
kwargs are not supported;
registering new functions should be done at import time thing is not thread-safe
A possible option is to use the multipledispatch module as detailed here:
http://matthewrocklin.com/blog/work/2014/02/25/Multiple-Dispatch
Instead of doing this:
def add(self, other):
if isinstance(other, Foo):
...
elif isinstance(other, Bar):
...
else:
raise NotImplementedError()
You can do this:
from multipledispatch import dispatch
#dispatch(int, int)
def add(x, y):
return x + y
#dispatch(object, object)
def add(x, y):
return "%s + %s" % (x, y)
With the resulting usage:
>>> add(1, 2)
3
>>> add(1, 'hello')
'1 + hello'
In Python 3.4 PEP-0443. Single-dispatch generic functions was added.
Here is a short API description from PEP.
To define a generic function, decorate it with the #singledispatch decorator. Note that the dispatch happens on the type of the first argument. Create your function accordingly:
from functools import singledispatch
#singledispatch
def fun(arg, verbose=False):
if verbose:
print("Let me just say,", end=" ")
print(arg)
To add overloaded implementations to the function, use the register() attribute of the generic function. This is a decorator, taking a type parameter and decorating a function implementing the operation for that type:
#fun.register(int)
def _(arg, verbose=False):
if verbose:
print("Strength in numbers, eh?", end=" ")
print(arg)
#fun.register(list)
def _(arg, verbose=False):
if verbose:
print("Enumerate this:")
for i, elem in enumerate(arg):
print(i, elem)
The #overload decorator was added with type hints (PEP 484).
While this doesn't change the behaviour of Python, it does make it easier to understand what is going on, and for mypy to detect errors.
See: Type hints and PEP 484
This type of behaviour is typically solved (in OOP languages) using polymorphism. Each type of bullet would be responsible for knowing how it travels. For instance:
class Bullet(object):
def __init__(self):
self.curve = None
self.speed = None
self.acceleration = None
self.sprite_image = None
class RegularBullet(Bullet):
def __init__(self):
super(RegularBullet, self).__init__()
self.speed = 10
class Grenade(Bullet):
def __init__(self):
super(Grenade, self).__init__()
self.speed = 4
self.curve = 3.5
add_bullet(Grendade())
def add_bullet(bullet):
c_function(bullet.speed, bullet.curve, bullet.acceleration, bullet.sprite, bullet.x, bullet.y)
void c_function(double speed, double curve, double accel, char[] sprite, ...) {
if (speed != null && ...) regular_bullet(...)
else if (...) curved_bullet(...)
//..etc..
}
Pass as many arguments to the c_function that exist, and then do the job of determining which c function to call based on the values in the initial c function. So, Python should only ever be calling the one c function. That one c function looks at the arguments, and then can delegate to other c functions appropriately.
You're essentially just using each subclass as a different data container, but by defining all the potential arguments on the base class, the subclasses are free to ignore the ones they do nothing with.
When a new type of bullet comes along, you can simply define one more property on the base, change the one python function so that it passes the extra property, and the one c_function that examines the arguments and delegates appropriately. It doesn't sound too bad I guess.
It is impossible by definition to overload a function in python (read on for details), but you can achieve something similar with a simple decorator
class overload:
def __init__(self, f):
self.cases = {}
def args(self, *args):
def store_function(f):
self.cases[tuple(args)] = f
return self
return store_function
def __call__(self, *args):
function = self.cases[tuple(type(arg) for arg in args)]
return function(*args)
You can use it like this
#overload
def f():
pass
#f.args(int, int)
def f(x, y):
print('two integers')
#f.args(float)
def f(x):
print('one float')
f(5.5)
f(1, 2)
Modify it to adapt it to your use case.
A clarification of concepts
function dispatch: there are multiple functions with the same name. Which one should be called? two strategies
static/compile-time dispatch (aka. "overloading"). decide which function to call based on the compile-time type of the arguments. In all dynamic languages, there is no compile-time type, so overloading is impossible by definition
dynamic/run-time dispatch: decide which function to call based on the runtime type of the arguments. This is what all OOP languages do: multiple classes have the same methods, and the language decides which one to call based on the type of self/this argument. However, most languages only do it for the this argument only. The above decorator extends the idea to multiple parameters.
To clear up, assume that we define, in a hypothetical static language, the functions
void f(Integer x):
print('integer called')
void f(Float x):
print('float called')
void f(Number x):
print('number called')
Number x = new Integer('5')
f(x)
x = new Number('3.14')
f(x)
With static dispatch (overloading) you will see "number called" twice, because x has been declared as Number, and that's all overloading cares about. With dynamic dispatch you will see "integer called, float called", because those are the actual types of x at the time the function is called.
By passing keyword args.
def add_bullet(**kwargs):
#check for the arguments listed above and do the proper things
Python 3.8 added functools.singledispatchmethod
Transform a method into a single-dispatch generic function.
To define a generic method, decorate it with the #singledispatchmethod
decorator. Note that the dispatch happens on the type of the first
non-self or non-cls argument, create your function accordingly:
from functools import singledispatchmethod
class Negator:
#singledispatchmethod
def neg(self, arg):
raise NotImplementedError("Cannot negate a")
#neg.register
def _(self, arg: int):
return -arg
#neg.register
def _(self, arg: bool):
return not arg
negator = Negator()
for v in [42, True, "Overloading"]:
neg = negator.neg(v)
print(f"{v=}, {neg=}")
Output
v=42, neg=-42
v=True, neg=False
NotImplementedError: Cannot negate a
#singledispatchmethod supports nesting with other decorators such as
#classmethod. Note that to allow for dispatcher.register,
singledispatchmethod must be the outer most decorator. Here is the
Negator class with the neg methods being class bound:
from functools import singledispatchmethod
class Negator:
#singledispatchmethod
#staticmethod
def neg(arg):
raise NotImplementedError("Cannot negate a")
#neg.register
def _(arg: int) -> int:
return -arg
#neg.register
def _(arg: bool) -> bool:
return not arg
for v in [42, True, "Overloading"]:
neg = Negator.neg(v)
print(f"{v=}, {neg=}")
Output:
v=42, neg=-42
v=True, neg=False
NotImplementedError: Cannot negate a
The same pattern can be used for other similar decorators:
staticmethod, abstractmethod, and others.
I think your basic requirement is to have a C/C++-like syntax in Python with the least headache possible. Although I liked Alexander Poluektov's answer it doesn't work for classes.
The following should work for classes. It works by distinguishing by the number of non-keyword arguments (but it doesn't support distinguishing by type):
class TestOverloading(object):
def overloaded_function(self, *args, **kwargs):
# Call the function that has the same number of non-keyword arguments.
getattr(self, "_overloaded_function_impl_" + str(len(args)))(*args, **kwargs)
def _overloaded_function_impl_3(self, sprite, start, direction, **kwargs):
print "This is overload 3"
print "Sprite: %s" % str(sprite)
print "Start: %s" % str(start)
print "Direction: %s" % str(direction)
def _overloaded_function_impl_2(self, sprite, script):
print "This is overload 2"
print "Sprite: %s" % str(sprite)
print "Script: "
print script
And it can be used simply like this:
test = TestOverloading()
test.overloaded_function("I'm a Sprite", 0, "Right")
print
test.overloaded_function("I'm another Sprite", "while x == True: print 'hi'")
Output:
This is overload 3
Sprite: I'm a Sprite
Start: 0
Direction: Right
This is overload 2
Sprite: I'm another Sprite
Script:
while x == True: print 'hi'
You can achieve this with the following Python code:
#overload
def test(message: str):
return message
#overload
def test(number: int):
return number + 1
Either use multiple keyword arguments in the definition, or create a Bullet hierarchy whose instances are passed to the function.
I think a Bullet class hierarchy with the associated polymorphism is the way to go. You can effectively overload the base class constructor by using a metaclass so that calling the base class results in the creation of the appropriate subclass object. Below is some sample code to illustrate the essence of what I mean.
Updated
The code has been modified to run under both Python 2 and 3 to keep it relevant. This was done in a way that avoids the use Python's explicit metaclass syntax, which varies between the two versions.
To accomplish that objective, a BulletMetaBase instance of the BulletMeta class is created by explicitly calling the metaclass when creating the Bullet baseclass (rather than using the __metaclass__= class attribute or via a metaclass keyword argument depending on the Python version).
class BulletMeta(type):
def __new__(cls, classname, bases, classdict):
""" Create Bullet class or a subclass of it. """
classobj = type.__new__(cls, classname, bases, classdict)
if classname != 'BulletMetaBase':
if classname == 'Bullet': # Base class definition?
classobj.registry = {} # Initialize subclass registry.
else:
try:
alias = classdict['alias']
except KeyError:
raise TypeError("Bullet subclass %s has no 'alias'" %
classname)
if alias in Bullet.registry: # unique?
raise TypeError("Bullet subclass %s's alias attribute "
"%r already in use" % (classname, alias))
# Register subclass under the specified alias.
classobj.registry[alias] = classobj
return classobj
def __call__(cls, alias, *args, **kwargs):
""" Bullet subclasses instance factory.
Subclasses should only be instantiated by calls to the base
class with their subclass' alias as the first arg.
"""
if cls != Bullet:
raise TypeError("Bullet subclass %r objects should not to "
"be explicitly constructed." % cls.__name__)
elif alias not in cls.registry: # Bullet subclass?
raise NotImplementedError("Unknown Bullet subclass %r" %
str(alias))
# Create designated subclass object (call its __init__ method).
subclass = cls.registry[alias]
return type.__call__(subclass, *args, **kwargs)
class Bullet(BulletMeta('BulletMetaBase', (object,), {})):
# Presumably you'd define some abstract methods that all here
# that would be supported by all subclasses.
# These definitions could just raise NotImplementedError() or
# implement the functionality is some sub-optimal generic way.
# For example:
def fire(self, *args, **kwargs):
raise NotImplementedError(self.__class__.__name__ + ".fire() method")
# Abstract base class's __init__ should never be called.
# If subclasses need to call super class's __init__() for some
# reason then it would need to be implemented.
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
raise NotImplementedError("Bullet is an abstract base class")
# Subclass definitions.
class Bullet1(Bullet):
alias = 'B1'
def __init__(self, sprite, start, direction, speed):
print('creating %s object' % self.__class__.__name__)
def fire(self, trajectory):
print('Bullet1 object fired with %s trajectory' % trajectory)
class Bullet2(Bullet):
alias = 'B2'
def __init__(self, sprite, start, headto, spead, acceleration):
print('creating %s object' % self.__class__.__name__)
class Bullet3(Bullet):
alias = 'B3'
def __init__(self, sprite, script): # script controlled bullets
print('creating %s object' % self.__class__.__name__)
class Bullet4(Bullet):
alias = 'B4'
def __init__(self, sprite, curve, speed): # for bullets with curved paths
print('creating %s object' % self.__class__.__name__)
class Sprite: pass
class Curve: pass
b1 = Bullet('B1', Sprite(), (10,20,30), 90, 600)
b2 = Bullet('B2', Sprite(), (-30,17,94), (1,-1,-1), 600, 10)
b3 = Bullet('B3', Sprite(), 'bullet42.script')
b4 = Bullet('B4', Sprite(), Curve(), 720)
b1.fire('uniform gravity')
b2.fire('uniform gravity')
Output:
creating Bullet1 object
creating Bullet2 object
creating Bullet3 object
creating Bullet4 object
Bullet1 object fired with uniform gravity trajectory
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "python-function-overloading.py", line 93, in <module>
b2.fire('uniform gravity') # NotImplementedError: Bullet2.fire() method
File "python-function-overloading.py", line 49, in fire
raise NotImplementedError(self.__class__.__name__ + ".fire() method")
NotImplementedError: Bullet2.fire() method
You can easily implement function overloading in Python. Here is an example using floats and integers:
class OverloadedFunction:
def __init__(self):
self.router = {int : self.f_int ,
float: self.f_float}
def __call__(self, x):
return self.router[type(x)](x)
def f_int(self, x):
print('Integer Function')
return x**2
def f_float(self, x):
print('Float Function (Overloaded)')
return x**3
# f is our overloaded function
f = OverloadedFunction()
print(f(3 ))
print(f(3.))
# Output:
# Integer Function
# 9
# Float Function (Overloaded)
# 27.0
The main idea behind the code is that a class holds the different (overloaded) functions that you would like to implement, and a Dictionary works as a router, directing your code towards the right function depending on the input type(x).
PS1. In case of custom classes, like Bullet1, you can initialize the internal dictionary following a similar pattern, such as self.D = {Bullet1: self.f_Bullet1, ...}. The rest of the code is the same.
PS2. The time/space complexity of the proposed solution is fairly good as well, with an average cost of O(1) per operation.
Use keyword arguments with defaults. E.g.
def add_bullet(sprite, start=default, direction=default, script=default, speed=default):
In the case of a straight bullet versus a curved bullet, I'd add two functions: add_bullet_straight and add_bullet_curved.
Overloading methods is tricky in Python. However, there could be usage of passing the dict, list or primitive variables.
I have tried something for my use cases, and this could help here to understand people to overload the methods.
Let's take your example:
A class overload method with call the methods from different class.
def add_bullet(sprite=None, start=None, headto=None, spead=None, acceleration=None):
Pass the arguments from the remote class:
add_bullet(sprite = 'test', start=Yes,headto={'lat':10.6666,'long':10.6666},accelaration=10.6}
Or
add_bullet(sprite = 'test', start=Yes, headto={'lat':10.6666,'long':10.6666},speed=['10','20,'30']}
So, handling is being achieved for list, Dictionary or primitive variables from method overloading.
Try it out for your code.
Plum supports it in a straightforward pythonic way. Copying an example from the README below.
from plum import dispatch
#dispatch
def f(x: str):
return "This is a string!"
#dispatch
def f(x: int):
return "This is an integer!"
>>> f("1")
'This is a string!'
>>> f(1)
'This is an integer!'
You can also try this code. We can try any number of arguments
# Finding the average of given number of arguments
def avg(*args): # args is the argument name we give
sum = 0
for i in args:
sum += i
average = sum/len(args) # Will find length of arguments we given
print("Avg: ", average)
# call function with different number of arguments
avg(1,2)
avg(5,6,4,7)
avg(11,23,54,111,76)

How to: safely call super constructors with different arguments

I have seen super().__init__(*args) used to call the super constructor safely (in a way that does not fail to diamond inheritence). However I cannot find a way to call different super constructors with different arguments in this way.
Here is an example illustraiting the problem.
from typing import TypeVar, Generic
X = TypeVar("X")
Y = TypeVar("Y")
class Base:
def __init__(self):
pass
class Left(Base, Generic[X]):
def __init__(self, x:X):
super().__init__()
self.lft = x
class TopRight(Base, Generic[Y]):
def __init__(self, y:Y):
super().__init__()
self.rgh = y
class BottomRight(TopRight[Y], Generic[Y]):
def __init__(self, y:Y):
super().__init__(y + y)
class Root(Left[X], BottomRight[Y], Generic[X, Y]):
def __init__(self, x:X, y:Y):
pass #issue here
#does not work
#super().__init__(x)
#super().__init__(y)
#calls base twice
#Left[X].__init__(x)
#BottomRight[Y].__init__(y)
How do I call Left.__init__(x) and BottomRight.__init__(y) seperately and safely?
The thing is that to be use in cooperative form, the intermediate classes have to accept the arguments that are not "aimed" at them, and pass those on on their own super call, in a way that becomes transparent.
You them do not place multiple calls to your ancestor classes: you let the language runtime do that for you.
Your code should be written:
from typing import Generic, TypeVar
X = TypeVar("X")
Y = TypeVar("Y")
class Base:
def __init__(self):
pass
class Left(Base, Generic[X]):
def __init__(self, x:X, **kwargs):
super().__init__(**kwargs)
self.lft = x
class TopRight(Base, Generic[Y]):
def __init__(self, y:Y, **kwargs):
super().__init__(**kwargs)
self.rgh = y
class BottomRight(TopRight[Y], Generic[Y]):
def __init__(self, y:Y, **kwargs): # <- when this is executed, "y" is extracted from kwargs
super().__init__(y=y + y, **kwargs) # <- "x" remains in kwargs, but this class does not have to care about it.
class Root(Left[X], BottomRight[Y], Generic[X, Y]):
def __init__(self, x:X, y:Y):
super().__init__(x=x, y=y) # <- will traverse all superclasses, "Generic" being last
Also, note that depending on your project's ends, and final complexity, these type annotations may gain you nothing, and instead, add complexity to a code otherwise trivial. They are not always a gain in Python projects, although due to circunstances the tooling (i.e. IDEs), might recommend them.
Also, check this similar answer from a few days ago, were I detail a bit more of Python method resolution order mechanisms, and point to the official documentation on them: In multiple inheritance in Python, init of parent class A and B is done at the same time?

n a separate class why does taking in an instance of a class in that constructor result in no statement effect errors?

I'm creating a chess game in which I decided to implement two class, the piece class an abstract class extends to various abstract operations(Pawn, King, Queen, Rook, Knight, Bishop), and every piece will be placed on a spot. The spot class represents one block of the 8x8 grid and an optional piece. In my spot class I take in an instance of the piece class in the constructor but I am getting an error "No statement effect errors". I am not sure why?
class Spot:
def __init__(self, x, y,Piece piece):
self.x = x
self.y = y
self.piece = piece
class Piece:
killed = False
white = False
def __init__(self, white,killed):
self.white = white
self.killed = killed
def iswhite(self):
return self.white == True
def iskilled(self):
return self.killed == True
In Python, you don't need to declare the type of your arguments, like in Java, C#, C++, etc. Python is dynamically typed, so the interpreter will figure out what objects you're passing during run time.
Change your code as follows:
class Spot:
def __init__(self, x, y, piece):
self.x = x
self.y = y
self.piece = piece
If you really want to specify the data types, you can use a feature of Python called type hinting as follows:
class Spot:
def __init__(self, x: int, y: int, piece: Piece):
self.x = x
self.y = y
self.piece = piece
A few other pointers:
You don't need to compare boolean operators using x == True, you can simply return the boolean variable x, which will have the same effect.
You should always use snake_case in Python, so is_white instead of iswhite.
You don't need to initialize the variables in the Piece class like that. You can do that in the __init__ method directly using default arguments. So if a user does not provide the argument, the default value will be used for that argument.
class Piece:
def __init__(self, white=False, killed=False):
self.white = white
self.killed = killed
def is_white(self):
return self.white
def is_killed(self):
return self.killed

Declaring Subclass without passing self

I have an abstract base class Bicycle:
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
class Bicycle(ABC):
def __init__(self, cadence = 10, gear = 10, speed = 10):
self._cadence = cadence
self._gear = gear
self._speed = speed
#abstractmethod
def ride(self):
pass
def __str__(self):
return "Cadence: {0} Gear: {1} Speed: {2}".format(self._cadence,
self._gear, self._speed)
and a subclass MountainBike:
from Bicycle import Bicycle
class MountainBike(Bicycle):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__(self)
def ride(self):
return "Riding my Bike"
The following code will cause a recursion error, but if I remove self from the super().__init__(self), the call to __str__(self): works.
Question:
I only discovered this error when I implemented the __str__(self):
In Python 3.x when calling the parent constructor from the child with no arguments, is passing self, necessary?
Suppose MountainBike now sets the cadence, gear, speed this means in my subclass the constructor will look like this:
class MountainBike(Bicycle):
def __init__(self, cadence, gear, speed):
super().__init__(cadence,gear,speed)
notice, self isn't being passed in the super because to my knowledge, it can throw the variable assignments off. Is this assumption correct?
self is passed implicitly to the super call, so adding it explicitly sends it twice:
def __init__(self):
super().__init__(self)
That ends up calling Bicycle(self, self), which is the same as Bicycle(self, cadence=self).
Later on, you have probably tried convert your instance to str (e.g. to print it), so this was called:
def __str__(self):
return "Cadence: {0} Gear: {1} Speed: {2}".format(self._cadence,
self._gear, self._speed)
That code tried to convert self._cadence to a string and self._cadence is self because of the previous error, so it continues in an endless recursion (until the recursion exception).
Note that super() takes two forms: with arguments and without arguments, so there are two correct ways to fix the code.
The Python 3 way (without arguments):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
The old Python 2 way, which is more explicit:
def __init__(self):
super(MountainBike, self).__init__()
Both do the same, i.e. they give you the bound __init__ method which already has the implicit self.
See also here: https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#super

Auto-select the correct subclass to instantiate from keywords in Python 3.x

There are some subclasses, which inherit from one baseclass. Now I would like the program to automatically choose the correct subclass and instantiate it, according to the input from a list.
What is the best way to do this? I know there is the possibility to make a factory method with an if-elif statement. But I'd rather like the subclasses to register themselves to the baseclass, to make the system as modular as possible. So that, when a new subclass is added, everything else can stay unchanged.
I read about factory classes, factory methods, metaclasses and decorators. But in the end I would like to have some kind of create(subclass_keyword) method in the baseclass. This method gets a keyword as input, selects the correct subclass to instantiate and returns it. Is this possible in Python 3.x?
I tried to do it, but didn't succeed yet. Do you have some hints on how to tackle the challenge? Here is the code to demonstrate my goal:
class Shape:
subclasses = dict()
def __init__(self, width, height):
self.width = width
self.height = height
#staticmethod
def register_subclass(subclass, name):
Shape.subclasses[name] = subclass
return subclass
#staticmethod
def create(shape_type, width, height):
return Shape.subclasses[shape_type](width, height)
#Shape.register_subclass('circle')
class Circle(Shape):
def draw(self): print("Draw circle of %s x %s." % (str(self.width), str(self.height)))
def erase(self): print ("Erase circle.")
#Shape.register_subclass('square')
class Square(Shape):
def draw(self): print("Draw square of %s x %s." % (str(self.width), str(self.height)))
def erase(self): print ("Erase square")
forms_str = ["square", "circle", "circle", "square"]
forms = []
for item in forms_str:
forms.append(Shape.create(item, 10, 10))
for elem in forms:
elem.draw()
elem.erase()

Categories