This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Can I get a reference to the 'owner' class during the init method of a descriptor?
Code is worth a thousand words:
>>> class ShortRib(object):
>>> def __init__(self, owner):
>>> self.owner = owner
>>>
>>> ... some more methods and stuff ...
>>>
>>>
>>> class Cow(object):
>>> shortRib = ShortRib(self)
>>>
>>>
>>> class BrownCow(Cow):
>>> pass
>>>
>>> BrownCow.shortRib.owner
<class '__main__.BrownCow'>
This doesn't work, though i wish it would. Basically, I want each class to have some static/class variables (i'm not sure which it is in this case?) but need each of those guys to know who (which class) it belongs to. Unfortunately, I can't "get" at the class in the body of the class declaration. Of course, I could always do this using a decorator:
>>> def vars(**kwargs):
>>> def wrap(cls):
>>> for k, w in kwargs.items():
>>> setattr(cls, k, w(cls))
>>> return cls
>>> return wrap
>>>
>>> #vars(shortRib=lambda cls: ShortRib(cls)
>>> class BrownCow(Cow):
>>> ...
>>>
>>> BrownCow.shortRib.owner
which would work. Another way would to have a class decorator that goes through all the shortRibs and similar static variables and sets their owner after the class declaration is complete. However, this seems like an incredibly roundabout and unintuitive way of doing what should be a pretty simple operation: having the static/class members of a class know who they belong to.
Is there a "proper" way of doing this?
Clarification:
I want these members to belong to the class, not to the instances. I'm trying to go for a almost-purely-functional style, using classes only for inheritance of shared behavior, and not creating instances of them at all. Instances would tend to give my functions access to arbitrary instance data shared across all functions, which would break the pure-functioness I am trying for. I could just use empty instances which I don't touch, but I think using pure classes would be cleaner.
You can easily do this in __new__:
class ShortRib(object):
def __init__(self, owner):
self.owner = owner
class Cow(object):
shortRib = None
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
if cls.shortRib == None:
cls.shortRib = ShortRib(cls)
return super(Cow, cls).__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
Cow()
Cow.shortRib.owner
Or even __init__, if you don't mind referencing self.__class___.
You can also do it with a metaclass:
class ShortRib(object):
def __init__(self, owner):
self.owner = owner
class MetaCow(type):
def __new__(cls, name, base, attrs):
attrs['shortRib'] = ShortRib(cls)
return super(MetaCow, cls).__new__(cls, name, base, attrs)
class Cow(object):
__metaclass__ = MetaCow
Cow.shortRib.owner
Why not let the instances of the Cow class have shortRibs, instead of the class itself?:
class ShortRib(object):
def __init__(self,owner):
self.owner=owner
class Cow(object):
def __init__(self):
self.shortRib=ShortRib(self)
class BrownCow(Cow):
pass
print(BrownCow().shortRib.owner)
# <__main__.BrownCow object at 0xb76a8d6c>
(Otherwise, you'll need a class decorator or metaclass -- as you've already mentioned. But simple is better than complex, so why not choose simple?)
By the way, if you really do want to use classes instead of instances:
class ShortRib(object):
def __init__(self, owner):
self.owner = owner
class MetaCow(type):
def __init__(cls, name, base, attrs):
super(MetaCow, cls).__init__(name, base, attrs)
cls.shortRib = ShortRib(cls)
class Cow(object):
__metaclass__ = MetaCow
class BrownCow(Cow):
pass
print(Cow.shortRib.owner)
# <class '__main__.Cow'>
print(BrownCow.shortRib.owner)
# <class '__main__.BrownCow'>
Using
class MetaCow(type):
def __new__(cls, name, base, attrs):
is incorrect. The signature for type.__new__ is
class MetaCow(type):
def __new__(meta, name, base, attrs):
Since you want to modify the attributes of cls, not meta, use the MetaCow.__init__ not MetaCow__new__.
Two methods to to do what you want:
You can override the __getattr__ method in any class to return anything you desire when you ask for the value of an attribute.
You can use a property, which has a getter that returns the object you want it to return.
Both __getattr__ methods and properties are inherited.
Related
Is there a way to access a class (where function is defined as a method) before there is an instance of that class?
class MyClass:
def method(self):
print("Calling me")
m1 = MyClass.method
instance = MyClass()
m2 = instance.method
print(m2.__self__.__class__) # <class 'MyClass'>
# how to access `MyClass` from `m1`?
For example I have m1 variable somewhere in my code and want to have a reference to MyClass the same way I can access it from bound method m2.__self__.__class__.
print(m1.__qualname__) # 'MyClass.method'
The only option I was able to find is __qualname__ which is a string containing name of the class.
The attribute __self__ itself is annotated by Python when the function is bound to an instance and become a method. (The code to that is run somewhere when running the __get__ code in the function, but passing an instance different than None).
So, as people pointed out, you have the option of getting the classname as a string by going through __qualname__. Otherwise, if the functions/methods for which you will need this feature are known beforehand, it is possible to create a decorator that will annotate their class when they are retrieved as a class attribute (in contrast to the native annotation which only takes place when retrieving then as an instance attribute):
class unboundmethod:
def __init__(self, func, cls):
self.__func__ = func
self.class_ = cls
self.__self__ = None
def __call__(self, instance, *args, **kw):
if not isinstance(instance, self.class_):
# This check is actually optional fancy stuff, since we are here! :-)
raise TypeError(f"First parameter fo {self.__func__.__name__} must be an instance of {self.class_}")
return self.__func__(instance, *args, **kw)
def __repr__(self):
return f"Unbound method {self.__func__!r} related to {self.class_}"
class clsbind:
def __init__(self, func):
self.func = func
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
if instance is None:
# the function is being retrieved from the class:
return unboundmethod(self.func, owner)
# return control to usual method creation codepath:
return self.func.__get__(instance, owner)
class MyClass:
#clsbind
def method(self):
print("Calling me")
And on the REPL you can have this:
In [136]: m1 = MyClass.method
In [137]: m1.class_
Out[137]: __main__.MyClass
In [138]: m1(MyClass())
Calling me
You can get the class instance using the __qualname__
my_class = eval(m1.__qualname__.split('.')[-2])
print(my_class)
Not the most generic and safest approach, but should work for this simple scenario.
class MyClass():
def __init__(self):
self.attribute_1 = "foo"
self.attribute_2 = "bar"
#property
def attribute_1(self):
return self._attribute_1
#attribute_1.setter
def attribute_1(self,s):
self._attribute_1 = s
#property
def attribute_2(self):
return self._attribute_2
#attribute_2.setter
def attribute_2(self,s):
self._attribute_2 = s
>>> ob = MyClass()
>>> ob.attribute_1 = 'fizz' #Ok
>>> ob.atribute_1 = 'buzz' #want to throw an exception because this has no setter or #property def
I would like my class to complain if we try and set an attribute that has not been decorated with property and a setter. I have tried using slots but can't get it working with the property decorator. 'attribute' in __slots__ conflicts with class variable
Any thoughts?
__slots__ should contain all instance variables, in your case it is _attribute_1 and _attribute_2 (the ones with underscores used internally) so just do that:
class MyClass():
__slots__ = ["_attribute_1", "_attribute_2"]
pass # rest of implementation
note that if your property is just directly forwarding you might as well just put the public variables in the slots and only have properties for fields that need more validation or other logic. having slots is effectively a property really:
>>> MyClass._attribute_1
<member '_attribute_1' of 'MyClass' objects>
I am trying to create a class that returns the class name together with the attribute. This needs to work both with instance attributes and class attributes
class TestClass:
obj1 = 'hi'
I.e. I want the following (note: both with and without class instantiation)
>>> TestClass.obj1
('TestClass', 'hi')
>>> TestClass().obj1
('TestClass', 'hi')
A similar effect is obtained when using the Enum package in python, but if I inherit from Enum, I cannot create an __init__ function, which I want to do as well
If I use Enum I would get:
from enum import Enum
class TestClass2(Enum):
obj1 = 'hi'
>>> TestClass2.obj1
<TestClass2.obj1: 'hi'>
I've already tried overriding the __getattribute__ magic method in a meta class as suggested here: How can I override class attribute access in python. However, this breaks the __dir__ magic method, which then wont return anything, and furthermore it seems to return name of the meta class, rather than the child class. Example below:
class BooType(type):
def __getattribute__(self, attr):
if attr == '__class__':
return super().__getattribute__(attr)
else:
return self.__class__.__name__, attr
class Boo(metaclass=BooType):
asd = 'hi'
>>> print(Boo.asd)
('BooType', 'asd')
>>> print(dir(Boo))
AttributeError: 'tuple' object has no attribute 'keys'
I have also tried overriding the __setattr__ magic method, but this seems to only affect instance attributes, and not class attributes.
I should state that I am looking for a general solution. Not something where I need to write a #property or #classmethod function or something similar for each attribute
I got help from a colleague for defining meta classes, and came up with the following solution
class MyMeta(type):
def __new__(mcs, name, bases, dct):
c = super(MyMeta, mcs).__new__(mcs, name, bases, dct)
c._member_names = []
for key, value in c.__dict__.items():
if type(value) is str and not key.startswith("__"):
c._member_names.append(key)
setattr(c, key, (c.__name__, value))
return c
def __dir__(cls):
return cls._member_names
class TestClass(metaclass=MyMeta):
a = 'hi'
b = 'hi again'
print(TestClass.a)
# ('TestClass', 'hi')
print(TestClass.b)
# ('TestClass', 'hi again')
print(dir(TestClass))
# ['a', 'b']
Way 1
You can use classmethod decorator to define methods callable at the whole class:
class TestClass:
_obj1 = 'hi'
#classmethod
def obj1(cls):
return cls.__name__, cls._obj1
class TestSubClass(TestClass):
pass
print(TestClass.obj1())
# ('TestClass', 'hi')
print(TestSubClass.obj1())
# ('TestSubClass', 'hi')
Way 2
Maybe you should use property decorator so the disered output will be accessible by instances of a certain class instead of the class itself:
class TestClass:
_obj1 = 'hi'
#property
def obj1(self):
return self.__class__.__name__, self._obj1
class TestSubClass(TestClass):
pass
a = TestClass()
b = TestSubClass()
print(a.obj1)
# ('TestClass', 'hi')
print(b.obj1)
# ('TestSubClass', 'hi')
I have a chain of inheritance in Python, and I want each child class to be able to add on new custom parameters. Right now I'm doing this:
class A(object):
PARAM_NAMES = ['blah1']
...
class B(A):
PARAM_NAMES = A.PARAM_NAMES + ['blah2']
...
I'm wondering if there's a slicker method, though, without referencing A twice? Can't use super() because it's not within a method definition, afaik. I suppose I could use a class method, but that'd be annoying (since I really would want a property).
What's the right way to do this?
of coarse there is always black magic you can do ... but the question is just because you can ... should you?
class MyMeta(type):
items = []
def __new__(meta, name, bases, dct):
return super(MyMeta, meta).__new__(meta, name, bases, dct)
def __init__(cls, name, bases, dct):
MyMeta.items.extend(cls.items)
cls.items = MyMeta.items[:]
super(MyMeta, cls).__init__(name, bases, dct)
class MyKlass(object):
__metaclass__ = MyMeta
class A(MyKlass):
items=["a","b","c"]
class B(A):
items=["1","2","3"]
print A.items
print B.items
since this creates a copy it will not suffer from the same problem as the other solution
(please note that I dont really recommend doing this ... its just to show you can)
This may or may not be smart, but it's technically possible to use a metaclass for this. Unlike Joran's method, I use a property, so that it retains full dynamic nature (that is, if you modify any class's private _PARAM_NAMES list after defining the class, the corresponding PARAM_NAME property of every other derived class reflects that change). For this reason I put an add_param method on the base class.
Python 3 is assumed here, and the PARAM_NAMES property returns a set to avoid duplicate items.
class ParamNameBuilderMeta(type):
def __new__(mcl, name, bases, dct):
names = dct.get("PARAM_NAMES", [])
names = {names} if isinstance(names, str) else set(names)
dct["_PARAM_NAMES"] = names
dct["PARAM_NAMES"] = property(lambda s: type(s).PARAM_NAMES)
return super().__new__(mcl, name, bases, dct)
#property
def PARAM_NAMES(cls):
# collect unique list items ONLY from our classes in the MRO
return set().union(*(c._PARAM_NAMES for c in reversed(cls.__mro__)
if isinstance(c, ParamNameBuilderMeta)))
Usage:
class ParamNameBuilderBase(metaclass=ParamNameBuilderMeta):
#classmethod
def add_param(self, param_name):
self._PARAM_NAMES.add(param_name)
class A(ParamNameBuilderBase):
PARAM_NAMES = 'blah1'
class B(A):
PARAM_NAMES = 'blah1', 'blah2'
class C(B):
pass
Check to make sure it works on both classes and instances thereof:
assert C.PARAM_NAMES == {'blah1', 'blah2'}
assert C().PARAM_NAMES == {'blah1', 'blah2'}
Check to make sure it's still dynamic:
C.add_param('blah3')
assert C.PARAM_NAMES == {'blah1', 'blah2', 'blah3'}
The behavior you've described is actually quite specific. You've said that you
want each child class to be able to add on new custom paramters
But the way you've implemented it, this will result in unpredictable behaviour. Consider:
class A(object):
PARAM_NAMES = ['blah1']
class B(A):
PARAM_NAMES = A.PARAM_NAMES + ['blah2']
class C(A):pass
print(A.PARAM_NAMES)
print(B.PARAM_NAMES)
print(C.PARAM_NAMES)
A.PARAM_NAMES.append('oops')
print(C.PARAM_NAMES)
What we notice is that the classes that choose to add new parameters have a new reference to the parameter list, while ones that do not add new parameters have the same reference as their parent. Unless carefully controlled, this is unsafe behaviour.
It is more reliable to only use constants as class properties, or to redefine the list entirely each time (make it a tuple), which is not "slicker". Otherwise, I'd reccomend class methods, as you suggest, and making the property an instance variable
I have class:
class A(object):
def do_computing(self):
print "do_computing"
Then I have:
new_class = type('B', (object,), {'a': '#A', 'b': '#B'})
What I want to achieve is to make all methods and properties on class A a member of class B. Class A can have from 0 to N such elements. I want to make them all a member of class B.
So far I get to:
methods = {}
for el in dir(A):
if el.startswith('_'):
continue
tmp = getattr(A, el)
if isinstance(tmp, property):
methods[el] = tmp
if isinstance(tmp, types.MethodType):
methods[el] = tmp
instance_class = type('B', (object,), {'a': '#A', 'b': '#B'})
for name, func in methods.items():
new_method = types.MethodType(func, None, instance_class)
setattr(instance_class, name, new_method)
But then when I run:
instance().do_computing()
I get an error:
TypeError: unbound method do_computing() must be called with A instance as first argument (got B instance instead)
Why I had to do that? We have a lot of legacy code and I need fancy objects that will pretend they are old objects but really.
One more important thing. I cannot use inheritance, to much magic happens in the background.
If you do it like this, it will work:
import types
class A(object):
def do_computing(self):
print "do_computing"
methods = {name:value for name, value in A.__dict__.iteritems()
if not name.startswith('_')}
instance_class = type('B', (object,), {'a': '#A', 'b': '#B'})
for name, func in methods.iteritems():
new_method = types.MethodType(func, None, instance_class)
setattr(instance_class, name, new_method)
instance_class().do_computing()
Unless I'm missing something, you can do this with inheritance:
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
super(B, self).__init__()
Then:
>>> b = B()
>>> b.do_computing()
do_computing
Edit: cms_mgr said the same in the comments, also fixed indentation
are you creating a facade? maybe you want something like this:
Making a facade in Python 2.5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facade_pattern
you could also use delegators. here's an example from the wxpython AGW:
_methods = ["GetIndent", "SetIndent", "GetSpacing", "SetSpacing", "GetImageList", "GetStateImageList",
"GetButtonsImageList", "AssignImageList", "AssignStateImageList", "AssignButtonsImageList",
"SetImageList", "SetButtonsImageList", "SetStateImageList", 'other_methods']
def create_delegator_for(method):
"""
Creates a method that forwards calls to `self._main_win` (an instance of :class:`TreeListMainWindow`).
:param `method`: one method inside the :class:`TreeListMainWindow` local scope.
"""
def delegate(self, *args, **kwargs):
return getattr(self._main_win, method)(*args, **kwargs)
return delegate
# Create methods that delegate to self._main_win. This approach allows for
# overriding these methods in possible subclasses of HyperTreeList
for method in _methods:
setattr(HyperTreeList, method, create_delegator_for(method))
Note that these wrap class methods... i.e both functions take a signature like def func(self, some, other, args) and are intended to be called like self.func(some, args). If you want to delegate a class function to a non-class function, you'll need to modify the delegator.
You can inherit from a parent class as such:
class Awesome():
def method_a():
return "blee"
class Beauty(Awesome):
def __init__(self):
self.x = self.method_a()
b = Beauty()
print(b.x)
>>> "blee"
This was freely typed, but the logic is the same none the less and should work.
You can also do fun things with setattr like so:
#as you can see this class is worthless and is nothing
class blee():
pass
b = blee()
setattr(b, "variable_1", "123456")
print(b.variable_1)
>>> 123456
essentially you can assign any object, method to a class instance with setattr.
EDIT: Just realized that you did use setattr, woops ;)
Hope this helps!