What behaviour will provide Python if you have inheritance from many Classes, which have same method implemented?
Class A():
def method():
pass
Class B():
def method():
pass
Class C(A,B):
pass
The question is quite complex... there have been at least three different algorithms for Python method resolution order.
For simple cases it does what you expect, for the subtle differences see
See http://python-history.blogspot.it/2010/06/method-resolution-order.html
Related
There are two main ways for a derived class to call a base class's methods.
Base.method(self):
class Derived(Base):
def method(self):
Base.method(self)
...
or super().method():
class Derived(Base):
def method(self):
super().method()
...
Suppose I now do this:
obj = Derived()
obj.method()
As far as I know, both Base.method(self) and super().method() do the same thing. Both will call Base.method with a reference to obj. In particular, super() doesn't do the legwork to instantiate an object of type Base. Instead, it creates a new object of type super and grafts the instance attributes from obj onto it, then it dynamically looks up the right attribute from Base when you try to get it from the super object.
The super() method has the advantage of minimizing the work you need to do when you change the base for a derived class. On the other hand, Base.method uses less magic and may be simpler and clearer when a class inherits from multiple base classes.
Most of the discussions I've seen recommend calling super(), but is this an established standard among Python coders? Or are both of these methods widely used in practice? For example, answers to this stackoverflow question go both ways, but generally use the super() method. On the other hand, the Python textbook I am teaching from this semester only shows the Base.method approach.
Using super() implies the idea that whatever follows should be delegated to the base class, no matter what it is. It's about the semantics of the statement. Referring explicitly to Base on the other hand conveys the idea that Base was chosen explicitly for some reason (perhaps unknown to the reader), which might have its applications too.
Apart from that however there is a very practical reason for using super(), namely cooperative multiple inheritance. Suppose you've designed the following class hierarchy:
class Base:
def test(self):
print('Base.test')
class Foo(Base):
def test(self):
print('Foo.test')
Base.test(self)
class Bar(Base):
def test(self):
print('Bar.test')
Base.test(self)
Now you can use both Foo and Bar and everything works as expected. However these two classes won't work together in a multiple inheritance schema:
class Test(Foo, Bar):
pass
Test().test()
# Output:
# Foo.test
# Base.test
That last call to test skips over Bar's implementation since Foo didn't specify that it wants to delegate to the next class in method resolution order but instead explicitly specified Base. Using super() resolves this issue:
class Base:
def test(self):
print('Base.test')
class Foo(Base):
def test(self):
print('Foo.test')
super().test()
class Bar(Base):
def test(self):
print('Bar.test')
super().test()
class Test(Foo, Bar):
pass
Test().test()
# Output:
# Foo.test
# Bar.test
# Base.test
I was looking into Python's super method and multiple inheritance. I read along something like when we use super to call a base method which has implementation in all base classes, only one class' method will be called even with variety of arguments. For example,
class Base1(object):
def __init__(self, a):
print "In Base 1"
class Base2(object):
def __init__(self):
print "In Base 2"
class Child(Base1, Base2):
def __init__(self):
super(Child, self).__init__('Intended for base 1')
super(Child, self).__init__()# Intended for base 2
This produces TyepError for the first super method. super would call whichever method implementation it first recognizes and gives TypeError instead of checking for other classes down the road. However, this will be much more clear and work fine when we do the following:
class Child(Base1, Base2):
def __init__(self):
Base1.__init__(self, 'Intended for base 1')
Base2.__init__(self) # Intended for base 2
This leads to two questions:
Is __init__ method a static method or a class method?
Why use super, which implicitly choose the method on it's own rather than explicit call to the method like the latter example? It looks lot more cleaner than using super to me. So what is the advantage of using super over the second way(other than writing the base class name with the method call)
super() in the face of multiple inheritance, especially on methods that are present on object can get a bit tricky. The general rule is that if you use super, then every class in the hierarchy should use super. A good way to handle this for __init__ is to make every method take **kwargs, and always use keyword arguments everywhere. By the time the call to object.__init__ occurs, all arguments should have been popped out!
class Base1(object):
def __init__(self, a, **kwargs):
print "In Base 1", a
super(Base1, self).__init__()
class Base2(object):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
print "In Base 2"
super(Base2, self).__init__()
class Child(Base1, Base2):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
super(Child, self).__init__(a="Something for Base1")
See the linked article for way more explanation of how this works and how to make it work for you!
Edit: At the risk of answering two questions, "Why use super at all?"
We have super() for many of the same reasons we have classes and inheritance, as a tool for modularizing and abstracting our code. When operating on an instance of a class, you don't need to know all of the gritty details of how that class was implemented, you only need to know about its methods and attributes, and how you're meant to use that public interface for the class. In particular, you can be confident that changes in the implementation of a class can't cause you problems as a user of its instances.
The same argument holds when deriving new types from base classes. You don't want or need to worry about how those base classes were implemented. Here's a concrete example of how not using super might go wrong. suppose you've got:
class Foo(object):
def frob(self):
print "frobbign as a foo"
class Bar(object):
def frob(self):
print "frobbign as a bar"
and you make a subclass:
class FooBar(Foo, Bar):
def frob(self):
Foo.frob(self)
Bar.frob(self)
Everything's fine, but then you realize that when you get down to it,
Foo really is a kind of Bar, so you change it
class Foo(Bar):
def frob(self):
print "frobbign as a foo"
Bar.frob(self)
Which is all fine, except that in your derived class, FooBar.frob() calls Bar.frob() twice.
This is the exact problem super() solves, it protects you from calling superclass implementations more than once (when used as directed...)
As for your first question, __init__ is neither a staticmethod nor a classmethod; it is an ordinary instance method. (That is, it receives the instance as its first argument.)
As for your second question, if you want to explicitly call multiple base class implementations, then doing it explicitly as you did is indeed the only way. However, you seem to be misunderstanding how super works. When you call super, it does not "know" if you have already called it. Both of your calls to super(Child, self).__init__ call the Base1 implementation, because that is the "nearest parent" (the most immediate superclass of Child).
You would use super if you want to call just this immediate superclass implementation. You would do this if that superclass was also set up to call its superclass, and so on. The way to use super is to have each class call only the next implementation "up" in the class hierarchy, so that the sequence of super calls overall calls everything that needs to be called, in the right order. This type of setup is often called "cooperative inheritance", and you can find various articles about it online, including here and here.
I have a public class which the module exports, and 3 implementations of it.
At certain points in the program, the implementation used will be changed dynamically,
something along the lines of:
class PublicClass(object):
_IMPLEMENTATION_TO_USE = _Imp1
def func1(self, arg1):
_IMPLEMENTATION_TO_USE.func1(arg1)
class _Imp1(PublicClass):
def func1(self, arg1): pass
class _Imp2(PublicClass):
def func1(self, arg1): pass
What's the best (Pythonic) way of achieving it?
Instead of composition, you could consider using a Abstract Base Class, with three different subclasses.
In python, duck typing is favoured over explicitly checking types.
I'm trying to pick up Python for a project, and I'm a bit confused about how to use abstraction and classes. (I'm not a very experienced programmer, so apologies for the basic level of this question.) I come from a Java/Ocaml background, and what I've been trying to do is as follows: I have abstract classes for a graph and a graphadvanced (a graph with some more fancy methods), that look something like this
class AbstractGraph:
def method1(self):
raise NotImplementedError
...
class AbstractAdvanced:
def method2(self):
raise NotImplementedError
...
I then have an implementation of a graph:
class Graph(AbstractGraph):
def method1(self):
* actual code *
Now my question is: can I do something like this?
class Advanced(AbstractAdvanced, AbstractGraph):
def method2(self):
*actual code, using the methods from AbstractGraph*
In other words, how can I define the methods of Advanced abstractly in terms of the methods of AbstractGraph, and then somehow pass Graph into a constructor to get an instance of Advanced that uses Advanced's definitions with Graph's implementation?
In terms of Ocaml, I'm trying to treat AbstractAdvanced and AbstractGraph as module types, but I've played around a little with python and I'm not sure how to get this to work.
If you want to create abstract base classes, you can, but they are of limited utility. It's more normal to start your class hierarchy (after inheriting from object, or some other third-party class) with concrete classes.
If you want to create a class that pieces together various classes that partially some protocol, then just inherit from your implementing classes:
#Always inherit from object, or some subtype thereof, unless you want your code to behave differently in python 2 and python 3
class AbstractGraph(object):
def method1(self):
raise NotImplementedError
class Graph(AbstractGraph):
def method1(self):
* actual code *
class GraphToo(AbstractGraph):
def method1(self):
* actual code *
class AbstractAdvanced(AbstractGraph):
def method2(self):
raise NotImplementedError
class Advanced(Graph,AbstractAdvanced):
def method2(self):
*actual code, using the methods from Graph*
# order of classes in the inheritance list matters - it will affect the method resolution order
class AdvancedToo(GraphToo, Advanced): pass
I've written a mixin class that's designed to be layered on top of a new-style class, for example via
class MixedClass(MixinClass, BaseClass):
pass
What's the smoothest way to apply this mixin to an old-style class? It is using a call to super in its __init__ method, so this will presumably (?) have to change, but otherwise I'd like to make as few changes as possible to MixinClass. I should be able to derive a subclass that makes the necessary changes.
I'm considering using a class decorator on top of a class derived from BaseClass, e.g.
#old_style_mix(MixinOldSchoolRemix)
class MixedWithOldStyleClass(OldStyleClass)
where MixinOldSchoolRemix is derived from MixinClass and just re-implements methods that use super to instead use a class variable that contains the class it is mixed with, in this case OldStyleClass. This class variable would be set by old_style_mix as part of the mixing process.
old_style_mix would just update the class dictionary of e.g. MixedWithOldStyleClass with the contents of the mixin class (e.g. MixinOldSchoolRemix) dictionary.
Is this a reasonable strategy? Is there a better way? It seems like this would be a common problem, given that there are numerous available modules still using old-style classes.
This class variable would be set by
old_style_mix as part of the mixing
process.
...I assume you mean: "...on the class it's decorating..." as opposed to "on the class that is its argument" (the latter would be a disaster).
old_style_mix would just update the
class dictionary of e.g.
MixedWithOldStyleClass with the
contents of the mixin class (e.g.
MixinOldSchoolRemix) dictionary.
No good -- the information that MixinOldSchoolRemix derives from MixinClass, for example, is not in the former's dictionary. So, old_style_mix must take a different strategy: for example, build a new class (which I believe has to be a new-style one, because old-style ones do not accept new-style ones as __bases__) with the appropriate sequence of bases, as well as a suitably tweaked dictionary.
Is this a reasonable strategy?
With the above provisos.
It seems like this would be a common
problem, given that there are numerous
available modules still using
old-style classes.
...but mixins with classes that were never designed to take mixins are definitely not a common design pattern, so the problem isn't common at all (I don't remember seeing it even once in the many years since new-style classes were born, and I was actively consulting, teaching advanced classes, and helping people with Python problems for many of those years, as well as doing a lot of software development myself -- I do tend to have encountered any "reasonably common" problem that people may have with features which have been around long enough!-).
Here's example code for what your class decorator could do (if you prefer to have it in a class decorator rather than directly inline...):
>>> class Mixo(object):
... def foo(self):
... print 'Mixo.foo'
... self.thesuper.foo(self)
...
>>> class Old:
... def foo(self):
... print 'Old.foo'
...
>>> class Mixed(Mixo, Old):
... thesuper = Old
...
>>> m = Mixed()
>>> m.foo()
Mixo.foo
Old.foo
If you want to build Mixed under the assumed name/binding of Mixo in your decorator, you could do it with a call to type, or by setting Mixed.__name__ = cls.__name__ (where cls is the class you're decorating). I think the latter approach is simpler (warning, untested code -- the above interactive shell session is a real one, but I have not tested the following code):
def oldstylemix(mixin):
def makemix(cls):
class Mixed(mixin, cls):
thesuper = cls
Mixed.__name__ = cls.__name__
return Mixed
return makemix