We Keep Coding

Python passing object as argument without overwriting

Consider this code:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
def myfunct(arg):
arg.x += 1
return arg
a = MyClass(0)
print(a.x)
b = myfunct(a)
print(a.x)
print(b.x)
This returns:
0
1
1
I would expect this code to behave in the same way as this one:
def myfunct(arg):
arg += 1
return arg
c = 0
print(c)
d = myfunct(c)
print(c)
print(d)
However the latter returns:
0
0
1
I understand this is due to Python's way of passing arguments by assignment, as explained in this post, or this post.
However, I can't figure out a way to work around the behavior exhibited in the first code, which is unwanted in the project I am working on. How can I pass an object as an argument to a function, return a madified object, and keep the original one untouched?

The simple solution is, just create or pass a copy. To do that you have to possibiltys. Either you create a .copy() method on the class or use the copy module.
A copy method could look like this:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
def copy(self):
return self.__class__(self.x)
The copy module works like this:
import copy
b = copy.copy(a)
You can use either way to create a function that simply returns a new copy of the argument:
def myfunct(arg):
arg = arg.copy() # Or copy.copy(arg)
arg.x += 1
return arg
Edit: As many other answers say, my approach shown above doesn't work if you have mutable objects in mutable objects (as example an object of your class, that has another object of your class in its args attribute). In that case use the copy.deepcopy function instead:
def myfunct(arg):
arg = copy.deepcopy(arg)
arg.x += 1
return arg

You're explicitly modifying your object. Python supports this behavior by default, but if you want to prevent modification of your object you may want to update the __setattr__ to manage attribute modification.
If you want to prevent the original object from modifying and you want to modify the object sent to the function you can add a __copy__ method to your object to be copyable in a way you like, then pass a copy of your object to the function using copy.copy().
class MyClass:
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
# default copy
def __copy__(self):
cls = self.__class__
result = cls.__new__(cls)
result.__dict__.update(self.__dict__)
return result
Demo:
In [21]: a = MyClass(0)
...: print(a.x)
...:
0
# import copy
In [22]: b = myfunct(copy.copy(a))
In [24]: a.x
Out[24]: 0
In [25]: b.x
Out[25]: 1

from copy import deepcopy
def myfunct(arg):
new_arg = deepcopy(arg)
new_arg.x += 1
return new_arg
I would recommend deepcopy over copy since you want to make sure that all references to the original object are cut.

Existence of mutable named tuple in Python?

Can anyone amend namedtuple or provide an alternative class so that it works for mutable objects?
Primarily for readability, I would like something similar to namedtuple that does this:
from Camelot import namedgroup
Point = namedgroup('Point', ['x', 'y'])
p = Point(0, 0)
p.x = 10
>>> p
Point(x=10, y=0)
>>> p.x *= 10
Point(x=100, y=0)
It must be possible to pickle the resulting object. And per the characteristics of named tuple, the ordering of the output when represented must match the order of the parameter list when constructing the object.

There is a mutable alternative to collections.namedtuple – recordclass.
It can be installed from PyPI:
pip3 install recordclass
It has the same API and memory footprint as namedtuple and it supports assignments (It should be faster as well). For example:
from recordclass import recordclass
Point = recordclass('Point', 'x y')
>>> p = Point(1, 2)
>>> p
Point(x=1, y=2)
>>> print(p.x, p.y)
1 2
>>> p.x += 2; p.y += 3; print(p)
Point(x=3, y=5)
recordclass (since 0.5) support typehints:
from recordclass import recordclass, RecordClass
class Point(RecordClass):
x: int
y: int
>>> Point.__annotations__
{'x':int, 'y':int}
>>> p = Point(1, 2)
>>> p
Point(x=1, y=2)
>>> print(p.x, p.y)
1 2
>>> p.x += 2; p.y += 3; print(p)
Point(x=3, y=5)
There is a more complete example (it also includes performance comparisons).
Recordclass library now provides another variant -- recordclass.make_dataclass factory function. It support dataclasses-like API (there are module level functions update, make, replace instead of self._update, self._replace, self._asdict, cls._make methods).
from recordclass import dataobject, make_dataclass
Point = make_dataclass('Point', [('x', int), ('y',int)])
Point = make_dataclass('Point', {'x':int, 'y':int})
class Point(dataobject):
x: int
y: int
>>> p = Point(1, 2)
>>> p
Point(x=1, y=2)
>>> p.x = 10; p.y += 3; print(p)
Point(x=10, y=5)
recordclass and make_dataclass can produce classes, whose instances occupy less memory than __slots__-based instances. This can be important for the instances with attribute values, which has not intended to have reference cycles. It may help reduce memory usage if you need to create millions of instances. Here is an illustrative example.

types.SimpleNamespace was introduced in Python 3.3 and supports the requested requirements.
from types import SimpleNamespace
t = SimpleNamespace(foo='bar')
t.ham = 'spam'
print(t)
namespace(foo='bar', ham='spam')
print(t.foo)
'bar'
import pickle
with open('/tmp/pickle', 'wb') as f:
pickle.dump(t, f)

As a Pythonic alternative for this task, since Python-3.7, you can use
dataclasses module that not only behaves like a mutable NamedTuple, because they use normal class definitions, they also support other class features.
From PEP-0557:
Although they use a very different mechanism, Data Classes can be thought of as "mutable namedtuples with defaults". Because Data Classes use normal class definition syntax, you are free to use inheritance, metaclasses, docstrings, user-defined methods, class factories, and other Python class features.
A class decorator is provided which inspects a class definition for variables with type annotations as defined in PEP 526, "Syntax for Variable Annotations". In this document, such variables are called fields. Using these fields, the decorator adds generated method definitions to the class to support instance initialization, a repr, comparison methods, and optionally other methods as described in the Specification section. Such a class is called a Data Class, but there's really nothing special about the class: the decorator adds generated methods to the class and returns the same class it was given.
This feature is introduced in PEP-0557 that you can read about it in more details on provided documentation link.
Example:
In [20]: from dataclasses import dataclass
In [21]: #dataclass
...: class InventoryItem:
...: '''Class for keeping track of an item in inventory.'''
...: name: str
...: unit_price: float
...: quantity_on_hand: int = 0
...:
...: def total_cost(self) -> float:
...: return self.unit_price * self.quantity_on_hand
...:
Demo:
In [23]: II = InventoryItem('bisc', 2000)
In [24]: II
Out[24]: InventoryItem(name='bisc', unit_price=2000, quantity_on_hand=0)
In [25]: II.name = 'choco'
In [26]: II.name
Out[26]: 'choco'
In [27]:
In [27]: II.unit_price *= 3
In [28]: II.unit_price
Out[28]: 6000
In [29]: II
Out[29]: InventoryItem(name='choco', unit_price=6000, quantity_on_hand=0)

The latest namedlist 1.7 passes all of your tests with both Python 2.7 and Python 3.5 as of Jan 11, 2016. It is a pure python implementation whereas the recordclass is a C extension. Of course, it depends on your requirements whether a C extension is preferred or not.
Your tests (but also see the note below):
from __future__ import print_function
import pickle
import sys
from namedlist import namedlist
Point = namedlist('Point', 'x y')
p = Point(x=1, y=2)
print('1. Mutation of field values')
p.x *= 10
p.y += 10
print('p: {}, {}\n'.format(p.x, p.y))
print('2. String')
print('p: {}\n'.format(p))
print('3. Representation')
print(repr(p), '\n')
print('4. Sizeof')
print('size of p:', sys.getsizeof(p), '\n')
print('5. Access by name of field')
print('p: {}, {}\n'.format(p.x, p.y))
print('6. Access by index')
print('p: {}, {}\n'.format(p[0], p[1]))
print('7. Iterative unpacking')
x, y = p
print('p: {}, {}\n'.format(x, y))
print('8. Iteration')
print('p: {}\n'.format([v for v in p]))
print('9. Ordered Dict')
print('p: {}\n'.format(p._asdict()))
print('10. Inplace replacement (update?)')
p._update(x=100, y=200)
print('p: {}\n'.format(p))
print('11. Pickle and Unpickle')
pickled = pickle.dumps(p)
unpickled = pickle.loads(pickled)
assert p == unpickled
print('Pickled successfully\n')
print('12. Fields\n')
print('p: {}\n'.format(p._fields))
print('13. Slots')
print('p: {}\n'.format(p.__slots__))
Output on Python 2.7
1. Mutation of field values
p: 10, 12
2. String
p: Point(x=10, y=12)
3. Representation
Point(x=10, y=12)
4. Sizeof
size of p: 64
5. Access by name of field
p: 10, 12
6. Access by index
p: 10, 12
7. Iterative unpacking
p: 10, 12
8. Iteration
p: [10, 12]
9. Ordered Dict
p: OrderedDict([('x', 10), ('y', 12)])
10. Inplace replacement (update?)
p: Point(x=100, y=200)
11. Pickle and Unpickle
Pickled successfully
12. Fields
p: ('x', 'y')
13. Slots
p: ('x', 'y')
The only difference with Python 3.5 is that the namedlist has become smaller, the size is 56 (Python 2.7 reports 64).
Note that I have changed your test 10 for in-place replacement. The namedlist has a _replace() method which does a shallow copy, and that makes perfect sense to me because the namedtuple in the standard library behaves the same way. Changing the semantics of the _replace() method would be confusing. In my opinion the _update() method should be used for in-place updates. Or maybe I failed to understand the intent of your test 10?

It seems like the answer to this question is no.
Below is pretty close, but it's not technically mutable. This is creating a new namedtuple() instance with an updated x value:
Point = namedtuple('Point', ['x', 'y'])
p = Point(0, 0)
p = p._replace(x=10)
On the other hand, you can create a simple class using __slots__ that should work well for frequently updating class instance attributes:
class Point:
__slots__ = ['x', 'y']
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x = x
self.y = y
To add to this answer, I think __slots__ is good use here because it's memory efficient when you create lots of class instances. The only downside is that you can't create new class attributes.
Here's one relevant thread that illustrates the memory efficiency - Dictionary vs Object - which is more efficient and why?
The quoted content in the answer of this thread is a very succinct explanation why __slots__ is more memory efficient - Python slots

The following is a good solution for Python 3: A minimal class using __slots__ and Sequence abstract base class; does not do fancy error detection or such, but it works, and behaves mostly like a mutable tuple (except for typecheck).
from collections import Sequence
class NamedMutableSequence(Sequence):
__slots__ = ()
def __init__(self, *a, **kw):
slots = self.__slots__
for k in slots:
setattr(self, k, kw.get(k))
if a:
for k, v in zip(slots, a):
setattr(self, k, v)
def __str__(self):
clsname = self.__class__.__name__
values = ', '.join('%s=%r' % (k, getattr(self, k))
for k in self.__slots__)
return '%s(%s)' % (clsname, values)
__repr__ = __str__
def __getitem__(self, item):
return getattr(self, self.__slots__[item])
def __setitem__(self, item, value):
return setattr(self, self.__slots__[item], value)
def __len__(self):
return len(self.__slots__)
class Point(NamedMutableSequence):
__slots__ = ('x', 'y')
Example:
>>> p = Point(0, 0)
>>> p.x = 10
>>> p
Point(x=10, y=0)
>>> p.x *= 10
>>> p
Point(x=100, y=0)
If you want, you can have a method to create the class too (though using an explicit class is more transparent):
def namedgroup(name, members):
if isinstance(members, str):
members = members.split()
members = tuple(members)
return type(name, (NamedMutableSequence,), {'__slots__': members})
Example:
>>> Point = namedgroup('Point', ['x', 'y'])
>>> Point(6, 42)
Point(x=6, y=42)
In Python 2 you need to adjust it slightly - if you inherit from Sequence, the class will have a __dict__ and the __slots__ will stop from working.
The solution in Python 2 is to not inherit from Sequence, but object. If isinstance(Point, Sequence) == True is desired, you need to register the NamedMutableSequence as a base class to Sequence:
Sequence.register(NamedMutableSequence)

Tuples are by definition immutable.
You can however make a dictionary subclass where you can access the attributes with dot-notation;
In [1]: %cpaste
Pasting code; enter '--' alone on the line to stop or use Ctrl-D.
:class AttrDict(dict):
:
: def __getattr__(self, name):
: return self[name]
:
: def __setattr__(self, name, value):
: self[name] = value
:--
In [2]: test = AttrDict()
In [3]: test.a = 1
In [4]: test.b = True
In [5]: test
Out[5]: {'a': 1, 'b': True}

If you want similar behavior as namedtuples but mutable try namedlist
Note that in order to be mutable it cannot be a tuple.

Let's implement this with dynamic type creation:
import copy
def namedgroup(typename, fieldnames):
def init(self, **kwargs):
attrs = {k: None for k in self._attrs_}
for k in kwargs:
if k in self._attrs_:
attrs[k] = kwargs[k]
else:
raise AttributeError('Invalid Field')
self.__dict__.update(attrs)
def getattribute(self, attr):
if attr.startswith("_") or attr in self._attrs_:
return object.__getattribute__(self, attr)
else:
raise AttributeError('Invalid Field')
def setattr(self, attr, value):
if attr in self._attrs_:
object.__setattr__(self, attr, value)
else:
raise AttributeError('Invalid Field')
def rep(self):
d = ["{}={}".format(v,self.__dict__[v]) for v in self._attrs_]
return self._typename_ + '(' + ', '.join(d) + ')'
def iterate(self):
for x in self._attrs_:
yield self.__dict__[x]
raise StopIteration()
def setitem(self, *args, **kwargs):
return self.__dict__.__setitem__(*args, **kwargs)
def getitem(self, *args, **kwargs):
return self.__dict__.__getitem__(*args, **kwargs)
attrs = {"__init__": init,
"__setattr__": setattr,
"__getattribute__": getattribute,
"_attrs_": copy.deepcopy(fieldnames),
"_typename_": str(typename),
"__str__": rep,
"__repr__": rep,
"__len__": lambda self: len(fieldnames),
"__iter__": iterate,
"__setitem__": setitem,
"__getitem__": getitem,
}
return type(typename, (object,), attrs)
This checks the attributes to see if they are valid before allowing the operation to continue.
So is this pickleable? Yes if (and only if) you do the following:
>>> import pickle
>>> Point = namedgroup("Point", ["x", "y"])
>>> p = Point(x=100, y=200)
>>> p2 = pickle.loads(pickle.dumps(p))
>>> p2.x
100
>>> p2.y
200
>>> id(p) != id(p2)
True
The definition has to be in your namespace, and must exist long enough for pickle to find it. So if you define this to be in your package, it should work.
Point = namedgroup("Point", ["x", "y"])
Pickle will fail if you do the following, or make the definition temporary (goes out of scope when the function ends, say):
some_point = namedgroup("Point", ["x", "y"])
And yes, it does preserve the order of the fields listed in the type creation.

I can't believe nobody's said this before, but it seems to me Python just wants you to write your own simple, mutable class instead of using a namedtuple whenever you need the "namedtuple" to be mutable.
Quick summary
Just jump straight down to Approach 5 below. It's short and to-the-point, and by far the best of these options.
Various, detailed approaches:
Approach 1 (good): simple, callable class with __call__()
Here is an example of a simple Point object for (x, y) points:
class Point():
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x = x
self.y = y
def __call__(self):
"""
Make `Point` objects callable. Print their contents when they
are called.
"""
print("Point(x={}, y={})".format(self.x, self.y))
Now use it:
p1 = Point(1,2)
p1()
p1.x = 7
p1()
p1.y = 8
p1()
Here is the output:
Point(x=1, y=2)
Point(x=7, y=2)
Point(x=7, y=8)
This is pretty similar to a namedtuple, except it is fully mutable, unlike a namedtuple. Also, a namedtuple isn't callable, so to see its contents, just type the object instance name withOUT parenthesis after it (as p2 in the example below, instead of as p2()). See this example and output here:
>>> from collections import namedtuple
>>> Point2 = namedtuple("Point2", ["x", "y"])
>>> p2 = Point2(1, 2)
>>> p2
Point2(x=1, y=2)
>>> p2()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: 'Point2' object is not callable
>>> p2.x = 7
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: can't set attribute
Approach 2 (better): use __repr__() in place of __call__()
I just learned you can use __repr__() in place of __call__(), to get more namedtuple-like behavior. Defining the __repr__() method allows you to define "the 'official' string representation of an object" (see the official documentation here). Now, just calling p1 is the equivalent of calling the __repr__() method, and you get identical behavior to the namedtuple. Here is the new class:
class Point():
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x = x
self.y = y
def __repr__(self):
"""
Obtain the string representation of `Point`, so that just typing
the instance name of an object of this type will call this method
and obtain this string, just like `namedtuple` already does!
"""
return "Point(x={}, y={})".format(self.x, self.y)
Now use it:
p1 = Point(1,2)
p1
p1.x = 7
p1
p1.y = 8
p1
Here is the output:
Point(x=1, y=2)
Point(x=7, y=2)
Point(x=7, y=8)
Approach 3 (better still, but a little awkward to use): make it a callable which returns an (x, y) tuple
The original poster (OP) would also like something like this to work (see his comment below my answer):
x, y = Point(x=1, y=2)
Well, for simplicity, let's just make this work instead:
x, y = Point(x=1, y=2)()
# OR
p1 = Point(x=1, y=2)
x, y = p1()
While we are at it, let's also condense this:
self.x = x
self.y = y
...into this (source where I first saw this):
self.x, self.y = x, y
Here is the class definition for all of the above:
class Point():
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x, self.y = x, y
def __repr__(self):
"""
Obtain the string representation of `Point`, so that just typing
the instance name of an object of this type will call this method
and obtain this string, just like `namedtuple` already does!
"""
return "Point(x={}, y={})".format(self.x, self.y)
def __call__(self):
"""
Make the object callable. Return a tuple of the x and y components
of the Point.
"""
return self.x, self.y
Here are some test calls:
p1 = Point(1,2)
p1
p1.x = 7
x, y = p1()
x2, y2 = Point(10, 12)()
x
y
x2
y2
I won't show pasting the class definition into the interpreter this time, but here are those calls with their output:
>>> p1 = Point(1,2)
>>> p1
Point(x=1, y=2)
>>> p1.x = 7
>>> x, y = p1()
>>> x2, y2 = Point(10, 12)()
>>> x
7
>>> y
2
>>> x2
10
>>> y2
12
Approach 4 (best so far, but a lot more code to write): make the class also an iterator
By making this into an iterator class, we can get this behavior:
x, y = Point(x=1, y=2)
# OR
x, y = Point(1, 2)
# OR
p1 = Point(1, 2)
x, y = p1
Let's get rid of the __call__() method, but to make this class an iterator we will add the __iter__() and __next__() methods. Read more about these things here:
https://treyhunner.com/2018/06/how-to-make-an-iterator-in-python/
How to build a basic iterator?
https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#StopIteration
Here is the solution:
class Point():
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x, self.y = x, y
self._iterator_index = 0
self._num_items = 2 # counting self.x and self.y
def __repr__(self):
"""
Obtain the string representation of `Point`, so that just typing
the instance name of an object of this type will call this method
and obtain this string, just like `namedtuple` already does!
"""
return "Point(x={}, y={})".format(self.x, self.y)
def __iter__(self):
return self
def __next__(self):
self._iterator_index += 1
if self._iterator_index == 1:
return self.x
elif self._iterator_index == 2:
return self.y
else:
raise StopIteration
And here are some test calls and their output:
>>> x, y = Point(x=1, y=2)
>>> x
1
>>> y
2
>>> x, y = Point(3, 4)
>>> x
3
>>> y
4
>>> p1 = Point(5, 6)
>>> x, y = p1
>>> x
5
>>> y
6
>>> p1
Point(x=5, y=6)
Approach 5 (USE THIS ONE) (Perfect!--best and cleanest/shortest approach): make the class an iterable, with the yield generator keyword
Study these references:
https://treyhunner.com/2018/06/how-to-make-an-iterator-in-python/
What does the "yield" keyword do?
Here is the solution. It relies on a fancy "iterable-generator" (AKA: just "generator") keyword/Python mechanism, called yield.
Basically, the first time an iterable calls for the next item, it calls the __iter__() method, and stops and returns the contents of the first yield call (self.x in the code below). The next time an iterable calls for the next item, it picks up where it last left off (just after the first yield in this case), and looks for the next yield, stopping and returning the contents of that yield call (self.y in the code below). Each "return" from a yield actually returns a "generator" object, which is an iterable itself, so you can iterate on it. Each new iterable call for the next item continues this process, starting up where it last left off, just after the most-recently-called yield, until no more yield calls exist, at which point the iterations are ended and the iterable has been fully iterated. Therefore, once this iterable has called for two objects, both yield calls have been used up, so the iterator ends. The end result is that calls like this work perfectly, just as they did in Approach 4, but with far less code to write!:
x, y = Point(x=1, y=2)
# OR
x, y = Point(1, 2)
# OR
p1 = Point(1, 2)
x, y = p1
Here is the solution (a part of this solution can also be found in the treyhunner.com reference just above). Notice how short and clean this solution is!
Just the class definition code; no docstrings, so you can truly see how short and simple this is:
class Point():
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x, self.y = x, y
def __repr__(self):
return "Point(x={}, y={})".format(self.x, self.y)
def __iter__(self):
yield self.x
yield self.y
With descriptive docstrings:
class Point():
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x, self.y = x, y
def __repr__(self):
"""
Obtain the string representation of `Point`, so that just typing
the instance name of an object of this type will call this method
and obtain this string, just like `namedtuple` already does!
"""
return "Point(x={}, y={})".format(self.x, self.y)
def __iter__(self):
"""
Make this `Point` class an iterable. When used as an iterable, it will
now return `self.x` and `self.y` as the two elements of a list-like,
iterable object, "generated" by the usages of the `yield` "generator"
keyword.
"""
yield self.x
yield self.y
Copy and paste the exact same test code as used in the previous approach (Approach 4) just above, and you will get the exact same output as above as well!
References:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/collections.html#collections.namedtuple
Approach 1:
What is the difference between __init__ and __call__?
Approach 2:
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/What-does-the-repr-function-do-in-Python-Object-Oriented-Programming
Purpose of __repr__ method?
https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#object.__repr__
Approach 4:
*****[EXCELLENT!] https://treyhunner.com/2018/06/how-to-make-an-iterator-in-python/
How to build a basic iterator?
https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#StopIteration
Approach 5:
See links from Approach 4, plus:
*****[EXCELLENT!] What does the "yield" keyword do?
What is the meaning of single and double underscore before an object name?

Provided performance is of little importance, one could use a silly hack like:
from collection import namedtuple
Point = namedtuple('Point', 'x y z')
mutable_z = Point(1,2,[3])

If you want to be able to create classes "on-site", I find the following very convenient:
class Struct:
def __init__(self, **kw):
self.__dict__.update(**kw)
That allows me to write:
p = Struct(x=0, y=0)
P.x = 10
stats = Struct(count=0, total=0.0)
stats.count += 1

The most elegant way I can think of doesn't require a 3rd party library and lets you create a quick mock class constructor with default member variables without dataclasses cumbersome type specification. So it's better for roughing out some code:
# copy-paste 3 lines:
from inspect import getargvalues, stack
from types import SimpleNamespace
def DefaultableNS(): return SimpleNamespace(**getargvalues(stack()[1].frame)[3])
# then you can make classes with default fields on the fly in one line, eg:
def Node(value,left=None,right=None): return DefaultableNS()
node=Node(123)
print(node)
#[stdout] namespace(value=123, left=None, right=None)
print(node.value,node.left,node.right) # all fields exist
A plain SimpleNamespace is clumsier, it breaks DRY:
def Node(value,left=None,right=None):
return SimpleNamespace(value=value,left=left,right=right)
# breaks DRY as you need to repeat the argument names twice

I will share my solution to this question. I needed a way to save attributes in the case that my program crashed or was stopped for some reason so that it would know where where in a list of inputs to resume from. Based on #GabrielStaples's answer:
import pickle, json
class ScanSession:
def __init__(self, input_file: str = None, output_file: str = None,
total_viable_wallets: int = 0, total: float = 0,
report_dict: dict = {}, wallet_addresses: list = [],
token_map: list = [], token_map_file: str = 'data/token.maps.json',
current_batch: int = 0):
self.initialized = time.time()
self.input_file = input_file
self.output_file = output_file
self.total_viable_wallets = total_viable_wallets
self.total = total
self.report_dict = report_dict
self.wallet_addresses = wallet_addresses
self.token_map = token_map
self.token_map_file = token_map_file
self.current_batch = current_batch
#property
def __dict__(self):
"""
Obtain the string representation of `Point`, so that just typing
the instance name of an object of this type will call this method
and obtain this string, just like `namedtuple` already does!
"""
return {'initialized': self.initialized, 'input_file': self.input_file,
'output_file': self.output_file, 'total_viable_wallets': self.total_viable_wallets,
'total': self.total, 'report_dict': self.report_dict,
'wallet_addresses': self.wallet_addresses, 'token_map': self.token_map,
'token_map_file':self.token_map_file, 'current_batch': self.current_batch
}
def load_session(self, session_file):
with open(session_file, 'r') as f:
_session = json.loads(json.dumps(f.read()))
_session = dict(_session)
for key, value in _session.items():
setattr(self, key, value)
def dump_session(self, session_file):
with open(session_file, 'w') as f:
json.dump(self.__dict__, fp=f)
Using it:
session = ScanSession()
session.total += 1
session.__dict__
{'initialized': 1670801774.8050613, 'input_file': None, 'output_file': None, 'total_viable_wallets': 0, 'total': 10, 'report_dict': {}, 'wallet_addresses': [], 'token_map': [], 'token_map_file': 'data/token.maps.json', 'current_batch': 0}
pickle.dumps(session)
b'\x80\x04\x95\xe8\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x8c\x08__main__\x94\x8c\x0bScanSession\x94\x93\x94)\x81\x94}\x94(\x8c\x0binitialized\x94GA\xd8\xe5\x9a[\xb3\x86 \x8c\ninput_file\x94N\x8c\x0boutput_file\x94N\x8c\x14total_viable_wallets\x94K\x00\x8c\x05total\x94K\n\x8c\x0breport_dict\x94}\x94\x8c\x10wallet_addresses\x94]\x94\x8c\ttoken_map\x94]\x94\x8c\x0etoken_map_file\x94\x8c\x14data/token.maps.json\x94\x8c\rcurrent_batch\x94K\x00ub.'

Python nested Classes - returning multiple values

I'm fairly new to classes in python, so please be gentle. My script is a tad more complicated than this, but this is essentially what it boils down to:
class primary_state:
def __init__(self,x,y,z):
self.x = x
self.y = y
self.z = z
self.substates=[]
def add_substate(self,i,j,k):
self.substates.append(self.substate(i,j,k))
class substate:
def __init__(self,i,j,k):
self.i = i
self.j = j
self.k = k
state = primary_state(1,2,3)
state.add_substate(4,5,6)
state.add_substate(7,8,9)
Now my question is: is it possible to return an array of values from each object? So for example I'd like to do:
state.substates[:].i
and have it return the values of 4 and 7, but alas substates is a list so it can't handle it. There also must be a more efficient way to do this but I haven't quite figured that out yet. Any advice/thoughts would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

Use a list comprehension.
[sub.i for sub in state.substates]
This is roughly equivalent to the following:
x = []
for sub in state.substates:
x.append(sub.i)
except shorter, and it's an expression that you can embed in other expressions instead of a series of statements.

You can get the list of substates by calling:
[substate.i for substate in self.substates]

list comprehensions are the way to do it as the other answers point out.
If the only job of the primary state class is to hold subclasses, you can make your class behave like an iterable. In the example you give this is mostly syntactic sugar, but it can be useful. Complete instructions on how to do it are here but it's pretty simple:
class PrimaryState(object): #always use "new style" classes! its 2013!
def __init__(self,x,y,z):
self.x = x
self.y = y
self.z = z
self.substates=[]
def __len__(self):
return len(self.substates)
def __getitem__(self, index):
return self.substates[index]
def __iter__(self):
for sub in substates: yield sub
def __contains__(self, item):
return item in self.substates
def add(self, item):
self.substates.append(item)
This way you can do:
primary = PrimaryState(1,2,3)
primary.add(SubState(4,5,6))
primary.add(SubState(7,8,9))
for item in primary:
print item
# Substate 4,5,6
# Substate 7,8,9
PS: Check out PEP-8, the standard python style guide for naming classes and so on. And use new style classes (inheriting from object). Down the road it's important!

Property setters for compound assignment?

Consider the following simple example class, which has a property that exposes a modified version of some internal data when called:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, value, offset=0):
self._value = value
self.offset = offset
#property
def value(self):
return self._value + self.offset
#value.setter
def value(self, value):
self._value = value
The value.setter works fine for regular assignment, but of course breaks down for compound assignment:
>>> x = Foo(3, 2)
>>> x.value
5
>>> x.value = 2
>>> x.value
4
>>> x.value += 5
>>> x.value
11
The desired behavior is that x.value += 5 should be equivalent to x.value = x._value + 5, as opposed to x.value = x.value + 5. Is there any way to achieve this (with the property interface) purely within the Foo class?

#ezod, there is no direct way to do what you're asking for, even with the descriptors protocol.
That kind behaviour of value property totally breaks the semantics of += operator.

Override the __iadd__ magic method.
You need to do that because += means "take the value and add five, then set that as the result". If you want it to know that the value isn't really the value, you need to change the semantics of the += operator.

I was confronted with the same problem and solved it with the following method:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self):
self._y = 0
#property
def y(self):
return self._y + 5
#y.setter
def y(self, value):
value -= 5
self._y = value
>>> f = Foo()
>>> f.y
5
>>> f.y += 1
>>> f._y
1
>>> f.y
6
Could this be a solution? Have I overlooked something?

The desired behavior is that x.value += 5 should be equivalent to
x.value = x._value + 5
Why should Python know how you property is implemented (i.e. that setter assigns its value exactly to _x)?
Protocol of property gives you a possibility assign different actions (get, set, delete) to one name. And this protocol doesn't care about a way of implementation of these actions.
So it would be quite confusable if Python make some assumptions about your code and try to modify strait forward code logic.

Is it possible to change an instance's method implementation without changing all other instances of the same class? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Override a method at instance level
(11 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I do not know python very much (never used it before :D), but I can't seem to find anything online. Maybe I just didn't google the right question, but here I go:
I want to change an instance's implementation of a specific method. When I googled for it, I found you could do it, but it changes the implementation for all other instances of the same class, for example:
def showyImp(self):
print self.y
class Foo:
def __init__(self):
self.x = "x = 25"
self.y = "y = 4"
def showx(self):
print self.x
def showy(self):
print "y = woohoo"
class Bar:
def __init__(self):
Foo.showy = showyImp
self.foo = Foo()
def show(self):
self.foo.showx()
self.foo.showy()
if __name__ == '__main__':
b = Bar()
b.show()
f = Foo()
f.showx()
f.showy()
This does not work as expected, because the output is the following:
x = 25
y = 4
x = 25
y = 4
And I want it to be:
x = 25
y = 4
x = 25
y = woohoo
I tried to change Bar's init method with this:
def __init__(self):
self.foo = Foo()
self.foo.showy = showyImp
But I get the following error message:
showyImp() takes exactly 1 argument (0 given)
So yeah... I tried using setattr(), but seems like it's the same as self.foo.showy = showyImp.
Any clue? :)

Since Python 2.6, you should use the types module's MethodType class:
from types import MethodType
class A(object):
def m(self):
print 'aaa'
a = A()
def new_m(self):
print 'bbb'
a.m = MethodType(new_m, a)
As another answer pointed out, however, this will not work for 'magic' methods of new-style classes, such as __str__().

This answer is outdated; the answer below works with modern Python
Everything you wanted to know about Python Attributes and Methods.
Yes, this is an indirect answer, but it demonstrates a number of techniques and explains some of the more intricate details and "magic".
For a "more direct" answer, consider python's new module. In particular, look at the instancemethod function which allows "binding" a method to an instance -- in this case, that would allow you to use "self" in the method.
import new
class Z(object):
pass
z = Z()
def method(self):
return self
z.q = new.instancemethod(method, z, None)
z is z.q() # true

If you ever need to do it for a special method (which, for a new-style class -- which is what you should always be using and the only kind in Python 3 -- is looked up on the class, not the instance), you can just make a per-instance class, e.g....:
self.foo = Foo()
meths = {'__str__': lambda self: 'peekaboo!'}
self.foo.__class__ = type('yFoo', (Foo,), meths)
Edit: I've been asked to clarify the advantages of this approach wrt new.instancemethod...:
>>> class X(object):
... def __str__(self): return 'baah'
...
>>> x=X()
>>> y=X()
>>> print x, y
baah baah
>>> x.__str__ = new.instancemethod(lambda self: 'boo!', x)
>>> print x, y
baah baah
As you can see, the new.instancemethod is totally useless in this case. OTOH...:
>>> x.__class__=type('X',(X,),{'__str__':lambda self:'boo!'})
>>> print x, y
boo! baah
...assigning a new class works great for this case and every other. BTW, as I hope is clear, once you've done this to a given instance you can then later add more method and other class attributes to its x.__class__ and intrinsically affect only that one instance!

If you're binding to the instance, you shouldn't include the self argument:
>>> class Foo(object):
... pass
...
>>> def donothing():
... pass
...
>>> f = Foo()
>>> f.x = donothing
>>> f.x()
>>>
You do need the self argument if you're binding to a class though:
>>> def class_donothing(self):
... pass
...
>>> foo.y = class_donothing
>>> f.y()
>>>

Your example is kind of twisted and complex, and I don't quite see what it has to do with your question. Feel free to clarify if you like.
However, it's pretty easy to do what you're looking to do, assuming I'm reading your question right.
class Foo(object):
def bar(self):
print('bar')
def baz():
print('baz')
In an interpreter ...
>>> f = Foo()
>>> f.bar()
bar
>>> f.bar = baz
>>> f.bar()
baz
>>> g = Foo()
>>> g.bar()
bar
>>> f.bar()
baz

Do Not Do This.
Changing one instance's methods is just wrong.
Here are the rules of OO Design.
Avoid Magic.
If you can't use inheritance, use delegation.
That means that every time you think you need something magic, you should have been writing a "wrapper" or Facade around the object to add the features you want.
Just write a wrapper.