We Keep Coding

Need help on creating object with class

I need help on creating an object (a sequence of numbers) in respect to some parameters of a class. Lets say I typed in to the Python IDLE shell:
SuperLotto = make_lottery_set_type('SuperLotto', 6, (1,50))
#means user can create a 'SuperLotto' with 6 numbers in range of 1 to 50
It would make 'SuperLotto' as a new class instance of a class called 'LotteryGameType'.
This is using the code so far:
class LotterySetError(Exception):
pass
def make_lottery_set_type(name:str, size:int, minmax:tuple):
if minmax[0] > minmax[1]:
raise LotterySetError('Illegal range for tuple')
else:
name = LotteryGameType(name, size, minmax[0], minmax[1])
return name
class LotteryGameType:
def __init__(self, name, set_size, min_set_number, max_set_number):
self.name = name
self.set_size = set_size
self.min_set_number = min_set_number
self.max_set_number = max_set_number
I want to be able to create a sequence of numbers and storing it for later use so I can use it with things like overload operators (e.g. eq and ne).
I want to be able to type into the Python IDLE shell:
SuperLotto([3, 4, 19, 23, 46, 27])
This would create an object under the parameters of SuperLotto, if not under parameters of 'SuperLotto' (say more than 6 numbers), it would raise an error. Any approach would be fine. Does anyone have any ideas on how to approach this?

It sounds like what you want is for make_lottery_set_type to return a new class, presumably one that's a subclass of LotteryGameType, rather than returning an instance of that type.
This is actually pretty easy to do in Python. Class definitions are just normal code, that you can run anywhere, even in the middle of a function. And they have access to the local environment while they're running. And classes themselves are "first-class values", meaning you can pass them around and return them from functions. So:
def make_lottery_set_type(name:str, size:int, minmax:tuple):
if minmax[0] > minmax[1]:
raise LotterySetError('Illegal range for tuple')
else:
class NewLotteryGameType(LotteryGameType):
def __init__(self, numbers):
super().__init__(name, size, minmax[0], minmax[1])
self.numbers = numbers
return NewLotteryGameType
If you want to add other methods, that's the same as adding methods to any other class. For example:
def make_lottery_set_type(name:str, size:int, minmax:tuple):
if minmax[0] > minmax[1]:
raise LotterySetError('Illegal range for tuple')
else:
class NewLotteryGameType(LotteryGameType):
def __init__(self, numbers):
super().__init__(name, size, minmax[0], minmax[1])
self.numbers = numbers
def __eq__(self, rhs):
return set(self.numbers) == set(rhs.numbers)
return NewLotteryGameType
So:
>>> SuperLotto = make_lottery_set_type('SuperLotto', 6, (1,50))
>>> super1 = SuperLotto([1,2,3,4,5,6])
>>> super2 = SuperLotto([6,5,4,3,2,1])
>>> super3 = SuperLotto([7,8,9,10,11,12])
>>> super1 == super2
True
>>> super1 == super3
False
(Obviously you can define __eq__ however you want, if set-equality isn't the right rule for your use.)
If you try to inspect the values you're generating, they don't look quite as pretty as you might like. For example, you'd probably rather see SuperLotto rather than NewLotteryGameType in places like this:
>>> super1
<__main__.NewLotteryGameType at 0x10259e490>
>>> SuperLotto.__name__
'NewLotteryGameType'
For that, just add NewLotteryGameType.__name__ = name. You might also want to copy over the docstring from the parent class, or various other things.
More generally, look at functools.update_wrapper (which is designed for wrapping up functions, not classes, but many of the details are the same) for inspiration, and the inspect module docs from your Python version for all of the attributes that classes can have.
In a comment, you ask:
The only problem is that I want NewLotteryGameType to inherit the parameters such as name, set_size, min_set_number, max_set_number from LotteryGameType. So lets say I wanted to type in NewLotteryGameType.set_size in to the Python Shell. I want it to return back to me 6.
That's contradictory. If you want to inherit the instance attributes of LotteryGameType… well, you already do. For example:
>>> super1.set_size
6
If you want them to be accessible off the class, then they can't be instance attributes, they have to be class attributes. And just changing set_size to a class attribute of LotteryGameType and inheriting it won't work, because the whole point of a class attribute is that the same value shared by all instances of the class or any of its subclasses, and the subclasses all need different values.
But you could do something like this:
class LotteryGameType:
def __init__(self, min_set_number, max_set_number):
self.min_set_number = min_set_number
self.max_set_number = max_set_number
def make_lottery_set_type(lottery_name:str, size:int, minmax:tuple):
if minmax[0] > minmax[1]:
raise LotterySetError('Illegal range for tuple')
else:
class NewLotteryGameType(LotteryGameType):
name = lottery_name
set_size = size
def __init__(self, numbers):
super().__init__(minmax[0], minmax[1])
self.numbers = numbers
def __eq__(self, rhs):
return set(self.numbers) == set(rhs.numbers)
return NewLotteryGameType
(Notice that I had to rename the first make_ parameter to lottery_name so it was different from the class attribute name, because of the way scopes work.) Now, name and set_size are not instance attributes, nor are they class attributes of LotteryGameType—but they're class attributes of each NewLotteryGameType. So:
>>> SuperLotto = make_lottery_set_type('SuperLotto', 6, (1,50))
>>> SuperDuperLotto = make_lottery_set_type('SuperDuperLotto', 8, (1,100))
>>> SuperLotto.set_size
6
>>> SuperDuperLotto.set_size
8
What if you create instances of those types? Well, Python looks for attributes in the instance, then in the most-derived class, and then the base classes. So as long as you don't create instance attributes with the same name (notice that I removed the extra params, and the code that set instance attributes, from the LotteryGameType.__init__ method), it does just what you'd want:
>>> super1 = SuperLotto([1,2,3,4,5,6])
>>> super1.set_size
6
>>> duper1 = SuperDuperLotto([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8])
>>> duper1.set_size
8
Of course this means that LotteryGameType is no longer a usable type on its own; only its subclasses are usable. But that's probably what you wanted anyway, right? You could even consider making it explicitly an abstract base class to make sure nobody accidentally tries to use a direct LotteryGameType instance.
If you're feeling brave, you might want to read up on metaclasses and see how you could adapt this whole design into use a LotteryGameMetaclass, so each new class is an instance of that metaclass instead of a subclass of the (abstract) base class. The source for the new enum module in 3.4, or the near-equivalent external flufl.enum package, might make good sample code. Then you can play with both and see how similar and how different they are.

Python reverse introspection

Lets suppose this example: Two siblings classes where one loads the other class as a new attribute and then i wish to use this attribute from the main class inside the sibling.
a = 2
class AN(object):
def __init__(self,a):
self.aplus = a + 2
self.BECls = BE(a)
class BE(object):
def __init__(self,a):
print a
def get_aplus(self):
????
c = AN(a)
and i'd like to do:
c.BECls.get_aplus()
and this shall return something like self.self.aplus (metaphorically), that would be 4
Resuming: get aplus attribute from AN inside BE class, without declaring as arguments, but doing a "Reverse introspection", if it possible, considering the 'a' variable must be already loaded trough AN.
Sorry if I not made myself clear but I've tried to simplify what is happening with my real code.
I guess the problem may be the technique i'm using on the classes. But not sure what or how make it better.
Thanks

OP's question:
get aplus attribute from AN inside BE class, without declaring as
arguments, but doing a "Reverse introspection", if it possible,
considering the 'a' variable must be already loaded trough AN.
The closest thing we have to "reverse introspection" is a search through gc.getreferrers().
That said, it would be better to simply make the relationship explicit
class AN(object):
def __init__(self,a):
self.aplus = a + 2
self.BECls = BE(self, a)
class BE(object):
def __init__(self, an_obj, a):
self.an_obj = an_obj
print a
def get_aplus(self):
return self.an_obj.aplus
if __name__ == '__main__':
a = 2
c = AN(a)
print c.BECls.get_aplus() # this returns 4

Python - Call an object from a list of objects

I have a class, and I would like to be able to create multiple objects of that class and place them in an array. I did it like so:
rooms = []
rooms.append(Object1())
...
rooms.append(Object4())
I then have a dict of functions, and I would like to pass the object to the function. However, I'm encountering some problems..For example, I have a dict:
dict = {'look': CallLook(rooms[i])}
I'm able to pass it into the function, however; in the function if I try to call an objects method it gives me problems
def CallLook(current_room)
current_room.examine()
I'm sure that there has to be a better way to do what I'm trying to do, but I'm new to Python and I haven't seen a clean example on how to do this. Anyone have a good way to implement a list of objects to be passed into functions? All of the objects contain the examine method, but they are objects of different classes. (I'm sorry I didn't say so earlier)
The specific error states: TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not callable

Anyone have a good way to implement a list of objects to be passed into functions? All of the objects contain the examine method, but they are objects of different classes. (I'm sorry I didn't say so earlier)
This is Python's plain duck-typing.
class Room:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def examine(self):
return "This %s looks clean!" % self.name
class Furniture:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def examine(self):
return "This %s looks comfortable..." % self.name
def examination(l):
for item in l:
print item.examine()
list_of_objects = [ Room("Living Room"), Furniture("Couch"),
Room("Restrooms"), Furniture("Bed") ]
examination(list_of_objects)
Prints:
This Living Room looks clean!
This Couch looks comfortable...
This Restrooms looks clean!
This Bed looks comfortable...
As for your specific problem: probably you have forgotten to return a value from examine()? (Please post the full error message (including full backtrace).)
I then have a dict of functions, and I would like to pass the object to the function. However, I'm encountering some problems..For example, I have a dict:
my_dict = {'look': CallLook(rooms[i])} # this is no dict of functions
The dict you have created may evaluate to {'look': None} (assuming your examine() doesn't return a value.) Which could explain the error you've observed.
If you wanted a dict of functions you needed to put in a callable, not an actual function call, e.g. like this:
my_dict = {'look': CallLook} # this is a dict of functions
if you want to bind the 'look' to a specific room you could redefine CallLook:
def CallLook(current_room)
return current_room.examine # return the bound examine
my_dict = {'look': CallLook(room[i])} # this is also a dict of functions
Another issue with your code is that you are shadowing the built-in dict() method by naming your local dictionary dict. You shouldn't do this. This yields nasty errors.

Assuming you don't have basic problems (like syntax errors because the code you have pasted is not valid Python), this example shows you how to do what you want:
>>> class Foo():
... def hello(self):
... return 'hello'
...
>>> r = [Foo(),Foo(),Foo()]
>>> def call_method(obj):
... return obj.hello()
...
>>> call_method(r[1])
'hello'

Assuming you have a class Room the usual way to create a list of instances would be using a list comprehension like this
rooms = [Room() for i in range(num_rooms)]

I think there are some things you may not be getting about this:
dict = {'look': CallLook(rooms[i])}
This creates a dict with just one entry: a key 'look', and a value which is the result of evaluating CallLook(rooms[i]) right at the point of that statement. It also then uses the name dict to store this object, so you can no longer use dict as a constructor in that context.
Now, the error you are getting tells us that rooms[i] is None at that point in the programme.
You don't need CallLook (which is also named non-standardly) - you can just use the expression rooms[i].examine(), or if you want to evaluate the call later rooms[i].examine.
You probably don't need the dict at all.

That is not a must, but in some cases, using hasattr() is good... getattr() is another way to get an attribute off an object...
So:
rooms = [Obj1(),Obj2(),Obj3()]
if hasattr(rooms[i], 'examine'):#First check if our object has selected function or attribute...
getattr(rooms[i], 'examine') #that will just evaluate the function do not call it, and equals to Obj1().examine
getattr(rooms[i], 'examine')() # By adding () to the end of getattr function, we evalute and then call the function...
You may also pass parameters to examine function like:
getattr(rooms[i], 'examine')(param1, param2)

I'm not sure of your requirement, but you can use dict to store multiple object of a class.
May be this will help,
>>> class c1():
... print "hi"
...
hi
>>> c = c1()
>>> c
<__main__.c1 instance at 0x032165F8>
>>> d ={}
>>> for i in range (10):
... d[i] = c1()
...
>>> d[0]
<__main__.c1 instance at 0x032166E8>
>>> d[1]
<__main__.c1 instance at 0x032164B8>
>>>
It will create a object of c1 class and store it in dict. Obviously, in this case you can use list instead of dict.

python self-less

this works in the desired way:
class d:
def __init__(self,arg):
self.a = arg
def p(self):
print "a= ",self.a
x = d(1)
y = d(2)
x.p()
y.p()
yielding
a= 1
a= 2
i've tried eliminating the "self"s and using a global statement in __init__
class d:
def __init__(self,arg):
global a
a = arg
def p(self):
print "a= ",a
x = d(1)
y = d(2)
x.p()
y.p()
yielding, undesirably:
a= 2
a= 2
is there a way to write it without having to use "self"?

"self" is the way how Python works. So the answer is: No! If you want to cut hair: You don't have to use "self". Any other name will do also. ;-)

Python methods are just functions that are bound to the class or instance of a class. The only difference is that a method (aka bound function) expects the instance object as the first argument. Additionally when you invoke a method from an instance, it automatically passes the instance as the first argument. So by defining self in a method, you're telling it the namespace to work with.
This way when you specify self.a the method knows you're modifying the instance variable a that is part of the instance namespace.
Python scoping works from the inside out, so each function (or method) has its own namespace. If you create a variable a locally from within the method p (these names suck BTW), it is distinct from that of self.a. Example using your code:
class d:
def __init__(self,arg):
self.a = arg
def p(self):
a = self.a - 99
print "my a= ", a
print "instance a= ",self.a
x = d(1)
y = d(2)
x.p()
y.p()
Which yields:
my a= -98
instance a= 1
my a= -97
instance a= 2
Lastly, you don't have to call the first variable self. You could call it whatever you want, although you really shouldn't. It's convention to define and reference self from within methods, so if you care at all about other people reading your code without wanting to kill you, stick to the convention!
Further reading:
Python Classes tutorial

When you remove the self's, you end up having only one variable called a that will be shared not only amongst all your d objects but also in your entire execution environment.
You can't just eliminate the self's for this reason.

How to call Python functions dynamically [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Calling a function of a module by using its name (a string)
(18 answers)
Closed 4 months ago.
I have this code:
fields = ['name','email']
def clean_name():
pass
def clean_email():
pass
How can I call clean_name() and clean_email() dynamically?
For example:
for field in fields:
clean_{field}()
I used the curly brackets because it's how I used to do it in PHP but obviously doesn't work.
How to do this with Python?

If don't want to use globals, vars and don't want make a separate module and/or class to encapsulate functions you want to call dynamically, you can call them as the attributes of the current module:
import sys
...
getattr(sys.modules[__name__], "clean_%s" % fieldname)()

Using global is a very, very, bad way of doing this. You should be doing it this way:
fields = {'name':clean_name,'email':clean_email}
for key in fields:
fields[key]()
Map your functions to values in a dictionary.
Also using vars()[] is wrong too.

It would be better to have a dictionary of such functions than to look in globals().
The usual approach is to write a class with such functions:
class Cleaner(object):
def clean_name(self):
pass
and then use getattr to get access to them:
cleaner = Cleaner()
for f in fields:
getattr(cleaner, 'clean_%s' % f)()
You could even move further and do something like this:
class Cleaner(object):
def __init__(self, fields):
self.fields = fields
def clean(self):
for f in self.fields:
getattr(self, 'clean_%s' % f)()
Then inherit it and declare your clean_<name> methods on an inherited class:
cleaner = Cleaner(['one', 'two'])
cleaner.clean()
Actually this can be extended even further to make it more clean. The first step probably will be adding a check with hasattr() if such method exists in your class.

I have come across this problem twice now, and finally came up with a safe and not ugly solution (in my humble opinion).
RECAP of previous answers:
globals is the hacky, fast & easy method, but you have to be super consistent with your function names, and it can break at runtime if variables get overwritten. Also it's un-pythonic, unsafe, unethical, yadda yadda...
Dictionaries (i.e. string-to-function maps) are safer and easy to use... but it annoys me to no end, that i have to spread dictionary assignments across my file, that are easy to lose track of.
Decorators made the dictionary solution come together for me. Decorators are a pretty way to attach side-effects & transformations to a function definition.
Example time
fields = ['name', 'email', 'address']
# set up our function dictionary
cleaners = {}
# this is a parametered decorator
def add_cleaner(key):
# this is the actual decorator
def _add_cleaner(func):
cleaners[key] = func
return func
return _add_cleaner
Whenever you define a cleaner function, add this to the declaration:
#add_cleaner('email')
def email_cleaner(email):
#do stuff here
return result
The functions are added to the dictionary as soon as their definition is parsed and can be called like this:
cleaned_email = cleaners['email'](some_email)
Alternative proposed by PeterSchorn:
def add_cleaner(func):
cleaners[func.__name__] = func
return func
#add_cleaner
def email():
#clean email
This uses the function name of the cleaner method as its dictionary key.
It is more concise, though I think the method names become a little awkward.
Pick your favorite.

globals() will give you a dict of the global namespace. From this you can get the function you want:
f = globals()["clean_%s" % field]
Then call it:
f()

Here's another way:
myscript.py:
def f1():
print 'f1'
def f2():
print 'f2'
def f3():
print 'f3'
test.py:
import myscript
for i in range(1, 4):
getattr(myscript, 'f%d' % i)()

I had a requirement to call different methods of a class in a method of itself on the basis of list of method names passed as input (for running periodic tasks in FastAPI). For executing methods of Python classes, I have expanded the answer provided by #khachik. Here is how you can achieve it from inside or outside of the class:
>>> class Math:
... def add(self, x, y):
... return x+y
... def test_add(self):
... print(getattr(self, "add")(2,3))
...
>>> m = Math()
>>> m.test_add()
5
>>> getattr(m, "add")(2,3)
5
Closely see how you can do it from within the class using self like this:
getattr(self, "add")(2,3)
And from outside the class using an object of the class like this:
m = Math()
getattr(m, "add")(2,3)

Here's another way: define the functions then define a dict with the names as keys:
>>> z=[clean_email, clean_name]
>>> z={"email": clean_email, "name":clean_name}
>>> z['email']()
>>> z['name']()
then you loop over the names as keys.
or how about this one? Construct a string and use 'eval':
>>> field = "email"
>>> f="clean_"+field+"()"
>>> eval(f)
then just loop and construct the strings for eval.
Note that any method that requires constructing a string for evaluation is regarded as kludgy.

for field in fields:
vars()['clean_' + field]()

In case if you have a lot of functions and a different number of parameters.
class Cleaner:
#classmethod
def clean(cls, type, *args, **kwargs):
getattr(cls, f"_clean_{type}")(*args, **kwargs)
#classmethod
def _clean_email(cls, *args, **kwargs):
print("invoked _clean_email function")
#classmethod
def _clean_name(cls, *args, **kwargs):
print("invoked _clean_name function")
for type in ["email", "name"]:
Cleaner.clean(type)
Output:
invoked _clean_email function
invoked _clean_name function

I would use a dictionary which mapped field names to cleaning functions. If some fields don't have corresponding cleaning function, the for loop handling them can be kept simple by providing some sort of default function for those cases. Here's what I mean:
fields = ['name', 'email', 'subject']
def clean_name():
pass
def clean_email():
pass
# (one-time) field to cleaning-function map construction
def get_clean_func(field):
try:
return eval('clean_'+field)
except NameError:
return lambda: None # do nothing
clean = dict((field, get_clean_func(field)) for field in fields)
# sample usage
for field in fields:
clean[field]()
The code above constructs the function dictionary dynamically by determining if a corresponding function named clean_<field> exists for each one named in the fields list. You likely would only have to execute it once since it would remain the same as long as the field list or available cleaning functions aren't changed.