I have a class where I add some attributes dynamically and at some point I want to restore the class to it's pristine condition without the added attributes.
The situation:
class Foo(object):
pass
Foo.x = 1
# <insert python magic here>
o = Foo() # o should not have any of the previously added attributes
print o.x # Should raise exception
My initial thought was to create a copy of the original class:
class _Foo(object):
pass
Foo = _Foo
Foo.x = 1
Foo = _Foo # Clear added attributes
o = Foo()
print o.x # Should raise exception
But since Foo is just a reference to _Foo any attributes get added to the original _Foo as well. I also tried
Foo = copy.deepcopy(_Foo)
in case that would help but apparently it does not.
clarification:
The user should not need to care about how the class is implemented. It should, therefore, have the same features of a "normally defined" class, i.e. introspection, built-in help, subclassing, etc. This pretty much rules out anything based on __getattr__
I agree with Glenn that this is a horribly broken idea. Anyways, here how you'd do it with a decorator. Thanks to Glenn's post as well for reminding me that you can delete items from a class's dictionary, just not directly. Here's the code.
def resetable(cls):
cls._resetable_cache_ = cls.__dict__.copy()
return cls
def reset(cls):
cache = cls._resetable_cache_ # raises AttributeError on class without decorator
for key in [key for key in cls.__dict__ if key not in cache]:
delattr(cls, key)
for key, value in cache.items(): # reset the items to original values
try:
setattr(cls, key, value)
except AttributeError:
pass
I'm torn on whether to reset the values by catching attempts to update non-assignable attributes with a try as I've shown or building a list of such attributes. I'll leave it up to you.
And here's a use:
#resetable # use resetable on a class that you want to do this with
class Foo(object):
pass
Foo.x = 1
print Foo.x
reset(Foo)
o = Foo()
print o.x # raises AttributeError as expected
You can use inspect and maintain an original list of members and than delete all members that are not in the original list
import inspect
orig_members = []
for name, ref in inspect.getmembers(o):
orig_members.append(name)
...
Now, when you need to restore back to original
for name, ref in inspect.getmembers(o):
if name in orig_members:
pass
else:
#delete ref here
You have to record the original state and restore it explicitly. If the value existed before you changed it, restore that value; otherwise delete the value you set.
class Foo(object):
pass
try:
original_value = getattr(Foo, 'x')
originally_existed = True
except AttributeError:
originally_existed = False
Foo.x = 1
if originally_existed:
Foo.x = original_value
else:
del Foo.x
o = Foo() # o should not have any of the previously added attributes
print o.x # Should raise exception
You probably don't want to be doing this. There are valid cases for monkey patching, but you generally don't want to try to monkey unpatch. For example, if two independent bits of code monkey patch the same class, one of them trying to reverse the action without being aware of the other is likely to break things. For an example of a case where this is actually useful, see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3829742#3829849.
The simplest way I found was this:
def foo_maker():
class Foo(object):
pass
return Foo
Foo = foo_maker()
Foo.x = 1
Foo = foo_maker() # Foo is now clean again
o = Foo() # Does not have any of the previously added attributes
print o.x # Raises exception
edit: As pointed out in comments, does not actually reset class but has the same effect in practice.
In your second example you're making a reference to the class rather than an instance.
Foo = _Foo # Reference
If you instead made an instance copy, what you want to do is exactly the way it will work. You can modify the instance all you want and 'revert' it by creating a new instance.
Foo = _Foo()
#!/usr/bin/python
class FooClass(object):
pass
FooInstance = FooClass() # Create an instance
FooInstance.x = 100 # Modify the instance
print dir(FooClass) # Verify FooClass doesn't have an 'x' attribute
FooInstance = FooClass() # Creates a new instance
print FooInstance.x # Exception
I don't know if you can accept an additional module file for class, if you can:
my_class.py
class Foo(object):
pass
You main script:
import my_class
Foo = my_class.Foo
Foo.x = 1
p = Foo()
print p.x # Printing '1'
# Some code....
reload(my_class) # reload to reset
Foo = my_class.Foo
o = Foo()
print p.x # Printing '1'
print o.__class__ == p.__class__ # Printing 'False'
print o.x # Raising exception
I am not sure if there is any side-effect. It seems to do what OP wants, though this is really unusal.
I don't fully understand why you need this, but I'll have a go. Ordinary inheritance probably won't do because you want to 'reset' to the old state. How about a proxy pattern?
class FooProxy(object):
def __init__(self, f):
self.f = foo
self.magic = {}
def set_magic(self, k, v):
self.magic[k] = v
def get_magic(self, k):
return self.magic.get(k)
def __getattr__(self, k):
return getattr(self.f, k)
def __setattr__(self, k, v):
setattr(self.f, k, v)
f = Foo()
p = FooProxy(f)
p.set_magic('m_bla', 123)
use f for ordinary, 'original' access, use p for proxied access, it should behave mostly like Foo. Re-proxy f with new configuration if you need to
I don't understand what you are trying to do, but keep in mind that you don't have to add attributes to the class in order to make it look like you added attributes to the class.
You can give the class a __getattr__ method that will be invoked for any missing attribute. Where it gets the value from is up to you:
class MyTrickyClass(object):
self.magic_prefix = "m_"
self.other_attribute_source = SomeOtherObject()
def __getattr__(self, name):
if name.startswith(self.magic_prefix):
stripped = name[len(self.magic_prefix):]
return getattr(self.other_attribute_source, stripped)
raise AttributeError
m = MyTrickyClass()
assert hasattr(m, "m_other")
MyTrickyClass.magic_prefix = "f_"
assert hasattr(m, "f_other")
If all the stuff you added starts with a given distinctive prefix, you could search the object's __dict__ for members with that prefix, and delete them, when it's time to restore.
To create a deep copy of a class you can use the new.classobj function
class Foo:
pass
import new, copy
FooSaved = new.classobj(Foo.__name__, Foo.__bases__, copy.deepcopy(Foo.__dict__))
# ...play with original class Foo...
# revert changes
Foo = FooSaved
UPD: module new is deprecated. Instead you should use types.ClassType with the same args
Related
Say I have a
class A:
def __init__(self, *args):
pass
and I want an decorator that copies A's definition and extend it with the new class.
def decorator(cls): # some decorator here
# make a new class which inherits from A
# return it while preserving the original A
Is that possible? (PS: This is to avoid maintainence problems.)
When you invoke a function using decorator syntax:
#my_decorator_function
class A:
pass
The decorator function's return value will replace the existing definition of A. So if you want it to create a new class and "return it while preserving the original A", you've got a tricky challenge. What you return will replace A, so you need to decide if that should be the original A or the new class. You can put the other one somewhere else.
For instance, this decorator would replace A with a subclass, and the subclass will make the original A class available as a class attribute named _orig:
def class_decorator(cls):
class SubClass(cls):
_orig = cls
# add other stuff here?
return SubClass
You can add extra logic to copy the original class's __name__ and __doc__ into the new class if you want to. You could also turn the logic around, and add SubClass as an attribute of cls before returning the otherwise unmodified cls.
Using #decorator is not the only possible syntax. You can put B = decorator(A) after the class definition.
class A:
...
B = decorator(A)
Now you still have a reference on the undecorated A, and you have a decorated version B.
The other answers have done a good job, but to make it crystal clear why you don't want to do this:
def dec(cls):
new_cls = type(cls.__name__, (cls,), {})
return new_cls
#dec
class A():
pass
Now inspect the method resolution order class A:
>>> A.__mro__
(<class '__main__.A'>, <class '__main__.A'>, <class 'object'>)
>>> classes = A.__mro__
>>> classes[0].__name__
'A'
>>> classes[1].__name__
'A'
TWO class As! Are they the same?
>>> classes[0] is classes[1]
False
Nope; different. The current variable A is pointing to the lowest one of course:
>>> A is classes[0]
True
But now you've lost name-access to the parent. That's usually not optimal.
In short: you are creating a metric ton of confusion and ambiguity for yourself a few months from now when you have forgotten all about what you did. Do something else.
If you really want to, here is an idea for spinning out new subclasses:
def add_babymaker(cls):
'''Adds a method for making new child classes.'''
def babymaker(name=None):
'''Creates a new child class based on the parent class.'''
name = name if name is not None else cls.__name__
new_cls = type(name, (cls,), {})
return new_cls
cls.babymaker = babymaker
return cls
#add_babymaker
class A():
pass
B = A.babymaker('B')
C = A.babymaker('C')
ANew = A.babymaker()
I think I have worked it out. That's not really a good idea.
def make_variant(cls):
suffix='VARIANT'
new = type(cls.__name__+suffix, (cls, ), {})
# new.__repr__ = lambda self: 'HELLO' # Just do whatever needed here
assert cls.__name__ + suffix not in globals()
globals()[cls.__name__+suffix] = new # Think twice about this line
return cls
#make_variant
class A:
def __init__(self):
pass
print(AVARIANT(), A())
I am generally confused about the difference between a "property" and an "attribute", and can't find a great resource to concisely detail the differences.
Properties are a special kind of attribute. Basically, when Python encounters the following code:
spam = SomeObject()
print(spam.eggs)
it looks up eggs in spam, and then examines eggs to see if it has a __get__, __set__, or __delete__ method — if it does, it's a property. If it is a property, instead of just returning the eggs object (as it would for any other attribute) it will call the __get__ method (since we were doing lookup) and return whatever that method returns.
More information about Python's data model and descriptors.
With a property you have complete control on its getter, setter and deleter methods, which you don't have (if not using caveats) with an attribute.
class A(object):
_x = 0
'''A._x is an attribute'''
#property
def x(self):
'''
A.x is a property
This is the getter method
'''
return self._x
#x.setter
def x(self, value):
"""
This is the setter method
where I can check it's not assigned a value < 0
"""
if value < 0:
raise ValueError("Must be >= 0")
self._x = value
>>> a = A()
>>> a._x = -1
>>> a.x = -1
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "ex.py", line 15, in <module>
a.x = -1
File "ex.py", line 9, in x
raise ValueError("Must be >= 0")
ValueError: Must be >= 0
In general speaking terms a property and an attribute are the same thing. However, there is a property decorator in Python which provides getter/setter access to an attribute (or other data).
class MyObject(object):
# This is a normal attribute
foo = 1
#property
def bar(self):
return self.foo
#bar.setter
def bar(self, value):
self.foo = value
obj = MyObject()
assert obj.foo == 1
assert obj.bar == obj.foo
obj.bar = 2
assert obj.foo == 2
assert obj.bar == obj.foo
The property allows you to get and set values like you would normal attributes, but underneath there is a method being called translating it into a getter and setter for you. It's really just a convenience to cut down on the boilerplate of calling getters and setters.
Lets say for example, you had a class that held some x and y coordinates for something you needed. To set them you might want to do something like:
myObj.x = 5
myObj.y = 10
That is much easier to look at and think about than writing:
myObj.setX(5)
myObj.setY(10)
The problem is, what if one day your class changes such that you need to offset your x and y by some value? Now you would need to go in and change your class definition and all of the code that calls it, which could be really time consuming and error prone. The property allows you to use the former syntax while giving you the flexibility of change of the latter.
In Python, you can define getters, setters, and delete methods with the property function. If you just want the read property, there is also a #property decorator you can add above your method.
http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html#property
I learnt 2 differences from site of Bernd Klein, in summary:
1. A property is a more convenient way to achieve data encapsulation
For example, let's say you have a public attribute length. Later on, your project requires you to encapsulate it, i.e. to change it to private and provide a getter and setter => you have to change the the code you wrote before:
# Old code
obj1.length = obj1.length + obj2.length
# New code (using private attributes and getter and setter)
obj1.set_length(obj1.get_length() + obj2.get_length()) # => this is ugly
If you use #property and #length.setter => you don't need to change that old code.
2. A property can encapsulate multiple attributes
class Person:
def __init__(self, name, physic_health, mental_health):
self.name = name
self.__physic_health = physic_health
self.__mental_health = mental_health
#property
def condition(self):
health = self.__physic_health + self.__mental_health
if(health < 5.0):
return "I feel bad!"
elif health < 8.0:
return "I am ok!"
else:
return "Great!"
In this example, __physic_health and __mental_health are private and cannot be accessed directly from outside.
There is also one not obvious difference that i use to cache or refresh data , often we have a function connected to class attribute. For instance i need to read file once and keep content assigned to the attribute so the value is cached:
class Misc():
def __init__(self):
self.test = self.test_func()
def test_func(self):
print 'func running'
return 'func value'
cl = Misc()
print cl.test
print cl.test
Output:
func running
func value
func value
We accessed the attribute twice but our function was fired only once. Changing the above example to use property will cause attribute's value refresh each time you access it:
class Misc():
#property
def test(self):
print 'func running'
return 'func value'
cl = Misc()
print cl.test
print cl.test
Output:
func running
func value
func running
func value
I like to think that, if you want to set a restriction for an attribute, use a property.
Although all attributes are public, generally programmers differentiate public and private attributes with an underscore(_). Consider the following class,
class A:
def __init__(self):
self.b = 3 # To show public
self._c = 4 # To show private
Here, b attribute is intended to be accessed from outside class A. But, readers of this class might wonder, can b attribute be set from outside class A?
If we intend to not set b from outside, we can show this intention with #property.
class A:
def __init__(self):
self._c = 4 # To show private
#property
def b(self):
return 3
Now, b can't be set.
a = A()
print(a.b) # prints 3
a.b = 7 # Raises AttributeError
Or, if you wish to set only certain values,
class A:
#property
def b(self):
return self._b
#b.setter
def b(self, val):
if val < 0:
raise ValueError("b can't be negative")
self._b = val
a = A()
a.b = 6 # OK
a.b = -5 # Raises ValueError
Imagine that i have f which is a function of a member of a class instance:
class A:
def b(self):
print 'hey'
a = A()
f = a.b
If I have another instance of the same class, let's say c = A() how can I reconstruct a new ff only using f and c, so calling ff() would result in c.b() instead of a.b()?
c = A()
ff = some_python_kungfu(f,c)
ff() #it is calling c.b()
Can you use a method reference for the class instead of the instance reference?
class A:
def whoami(self):
print 'I am %s' % id(self)
a = A()
c = A()
func = A.whoami
func(a)
func(c)
So you want to know how to rebind an already bound method to another instance, using only the bound method and the other instance. It can be done like this:
def some_python_kungfu(meth, obj):
return type(meth)(meth.__func__, obj, obj.__class__)
The __func__ attribute is really the same as Ned Batchelders im_func, but __func__ is forward-compatible with python 3.
There is one case where this will not work: methods of built-in classes. The __func__ and im_func attributes are only available on user-defined classes. Therefore, this will fail:
a = "that's no ordinary rabbit"
b = "consult the book of armaments"
b_split = some_python_kungfu(a.split, b)
A slight modification of Ned's solution will work on both built-in and user-defined classes:
def some_python_kungfu(meth, obj):
return getattr(obj, meth.__name__)
So will this always work then? Well... no, but the stumbling block a rather obscure and (I guess) seldom occuring problem: if the name of the method (meth.__name__) is not the same as the name it has in the class dictionary ('b'), then getattr will either return the wrong attribute or raise an AttributeError. For example:
def external(self):
pass
class A(object):
b = external
Here A.b.__name__ == 'external' instead of 'b', so getattr(obj, 'external') will be called instead of getattr(obj, 'b').
While both previous approaches have problems, one with built-in classes and one with patched-together classes, both problems do not occur simultaneously in any circumstance. Therefore, a combination will work in all cases:
def some_python_kungfu(meth, obj):
try:
return type(meth)(meth.__func__, obj, obj.__class__)
except AttributeError:
# meth is a built-in method, so meth.__name__ is always correct
return getattr(obj, meth.__name__)
As explained elsewhere on this page, your best bet would probably be to ignore this whole mess and do it some cleaner way, like for instance using the unbound methods and passing in the first argument (self) manually, as in Cixates answer. But who knows, this may prove useful to some of you some day perhaps, in a somewhat bizarre set of circumstances. ;)
I'm not sure this would work in all cases, but:
def some_python_kungfu(meth, obj):
"""Get a bound method on `obj` corresponding to the method `meth`."""
return getattr(obj, meth.im_func.__name__)
I am generally confused about the difference between a "property" and an "attribute", and can't find a great resource to concisely detail the differences.
Properties are a special kind of attribute. Basically, when Python encounters the following code:
spam = SomeObject()
print(spam.eggs)
it looks up eggs in spam, and then examines eggs to see if it has a __get__, __set__, or __delete__ method — if it does, it's a property. If it is a property, instead of just returning the eggs object (as it would for any other attribute) it will call the __get__ method (since we were doing lookup) and return whatever that method returns.
More information about Python's data model and descriptors.
With a property you have complete control on its getter, setter and deleter methods, which you don't have (if not using caveats) with an attribute.
class A(object):
_x = 0
'''A._x is an attribute'''
#property
def x(self):
'''
A.x is a property
This is the getter method
'''
return self._x
#x.setter
def x(self, value):
"""
This is the setter method
where I can check it's not assigned a value < 0
"""
if value < 0:
raise ValueError("Must be >= 0")
self._x = value
>>> a = A()
>>> a._x = -1
>>> a.x = -1
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "ex.py", line 15, in <module>
a.x = -1
File "ex.py", line 9, in x
raise ValueError("Must be >= 0")
ValueError: Must be >= 0
In general speaking terms a property and an attribute are the same thing. However, there is a property decorator in Python which provides getter/setter access to an attribute (or other data).
class MyObject(object):
# This is a normal attribute
foo = 1
#property
def bar(self):
return self.foo
#bar.setter
def bar(self, value):
self.foo = value
obj = MyObject()
assert obj.foo == 1
assert obj.bar == obj.foo
obj.bar = 2
assert obj.foo == 2
assert obj.bar == obj.foo
The property allows you to get and set values like you would normal attributes, but underneath there is a method being called translating it into a getter and setter for you. It's really just a convenience to cut down on the boilerplate of calling getters and setters.
Lets say for example, you had a class that held some x and y coordinates for something you needed. To set them you might want to do something like:
myObj.x = 5
myObj.y = 10
That is much easier to look at and think about than writing:
myObj.setX(5)
myObj.setY(10)
The problem is, what if one day your class changes such that you need to offset your x and y by some value? Now you would need to go in and change your class definition and all of the code that calls it, which could be really time consuming and error prone. The property allows you to use the former syntax while giving you the flexibility of change of the latter.
In Python, you can define getters, setters, and delete methods with the property function. If you just want the read property, there is also a #property decorator you can add above your method.
http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html#property
I learnt 2 differences from site of Bernd Klein, in summary:
1. A property is a more convenient way to achieve data encapsulation
For example, let's say you have a public attribute length. Later on, your project requires you to encapsulate it, i.e. to change it to private and provide a getter and setter => you have to change the the code you wrote before:
# Old code
obj1.length = obj1.length + obj2.length
# New code (using private attributes and getter and setter)
obj1.set_length(obj1.get_length() + obj2.get_length()) # => this is ugly
If you use #property and #length.setter => you don't need to change that old code.
2. A property can encapsulate multiple attributes
class Person:
def __init__(self, name, physic_health, mental_health):
self.name = name
self.__physic_health = physic_health
self.__mental_health = mental_health
#property
def condition(self):
health = self.__physic_health + self.__mental_health
if(health < 5.0):
return "I feel bad!"
elif health < 8.0:
return "I am ok!"
else:
return "Great!"
In this example, __physic_health and __mental_health are private and cannot be accessed directly from outside.
There is also one not obvious difference that i use to cache or refresh data , often we have a function connected to class attribute. For instance i need to read file once and keep content assigned to the attribute so the value is cached:
class Misc():
def __init__(self):
self.test = self.test_func()
def test_func(self):
print 'func running'
return 'func value'
cl = Misc()
print cl.test
print cl.test
Output:
func running
func value
func value
We accessed the attribute twice but our function was fired only once. Changing the above example to use property will cause attribute's value refresh each time you access it:
class Misc():
#property
def test(self):
print 'func running'
return 'func value'
cl = Misc()
print cl.test
print cl.test
Output:
func running
func value
func running
func value
I like to think that, if you want to set a restriction for an attribute, use a property.
Although all attributes are public, generally programmers differentiate public and private attributes with an underscore(_). Consider the following class,
class A:
def __init__(self):
self.b = 3 # To show public
self._c = 4 # To show private
Here, b attribute is intended to be accessed from outside class A. But, readers of this class might wonder, can b attribute be set from outside class A?
If we intend to not set b from outside, we can show this intention with #property.
class A:
def __init__(self):
self._c = 4 # To show private
#property
def b(self):
return 3
Now, b can't be set.
a = A()
print(a.b) # prints 3
a.b = 7 # Raises AttributeError
Or, if you wish to set only certain values,
class A:
#property
def b(self):
return self._b
#b.setter
def b(self, val):
if val < 0:
raise ValueError("b can't be negative")
self._b = val
a = A()
a.b = 6 # OK
a.b = -5 # Raises ValueError
This question already has answers here:
Getting the name of a variable as a string
(32 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
While building a new class object in python, I want to be able to create a default value based on the instance name of the class without passing in an extra argument. How can I accomplish this? Here's the basic pseudo-code I'm trying for:
class SomeObject():
defined_name = u""
def __init__(self, def_name=None):
if def_name == None:
def_name = u"%s" % (<INSTANCE NAME>)
self.defined_name = def_name
ThisObject = SomeObject()
print ThisObject.defined_name # Should print "ThisObject"
Well, there is almost a way to do it:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import traceback
class SomeObject():
def __init__(self, def_name=None):
if def_name == None:
(filename,line_number,function_name,text)=traceback.extract_stack()[-2]
def_name = text[:text.find('=')].strip()
self.defined_name = def_name
ThisObject = SomeObject()
print ThisObject.defined_name
# ThisObject
The traceback module allows you to peek at the code used to call SomeObject().
With a little string wrangling, text[:text.find('=')].strip() you can
guess what the def_name should be.
However, this hack is brittle. For example, this doesn't work so well:
ThisObject,ThatObject = SomeObject(),SomeObject()
print ThisObject.defined_name
# ThisObject,ThatObject
print ThatObject.defined_name
# ThisObject,ThatObject
So if you were to use this hack, you have to bear in mind that you must call SomeObject()
using simple python statement:
ThisObject = SomeObject()
By the way, as a further example of using traceback, if you define
def pv(var):
# stack is a list of 4-tuples: (filename, line number, function name, text)
# see http://docs.python.org/library/traceback.html#module-traceback
#
(filename,line_number,function_name,text)=traceback.extract_stack()[-2]
# ('x_traceback.py', 18, 'f', 'print_var(y)')
print('%s: %s'%(text[text.find('(')+1:-1],var))
then you can call
x=3.14
pv(x)
# x: 3.14
to print both the variable name and its value.
Instances don't have names. By the time the global name ThisObject gets bound to the instance created by evaluating the SomeObject constructor, the constructor has finished running.
If you want an object to have a name, just pass the name along in the constructor.
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
You can create a method inside your class that check all variables in the current frame and use hash() to look for the self variable.
The solution proposed here will return all the variables pointing to the instance object.
In the class below, isinstance() is used to avoid problems when applying hash(), since some objects like a numpy.array or a list, for example, are unhashable.
import inspect
class A(object):
def get_my_name(self):
ans = []
frame = inspect.currentframe().f_back
tmp = dict(frame.f_globals.items() + frame.f_locals.items())
for k, var in tmp.items():
if isinstance(var, self.__class__):
if hash(self) == hash(var):
ans.append(k)
return ans
The following test has been done:
def test():
a = A()
b = a
c = b
print c.get_my_name()
The result is:
test()
#['a', 'c', 'b']
This cannot work, just imagine this: a = b = TheMagicObjet(). Names have no effect on Values, they just point to them.
One horrible, horrible way to accomplish this is to reverse the responsibilities:
class SomeObject():
def __init__(self, def_name):
self.defined_name = def_name
globals()[def_name] = self
SomeObject("ThisObject")
print ThisObject.defined_name
If you wanted to support something other than global scope, you'd have to do something even more awful.
In Python, all data is stored in objects. Additionally, a name can be bound with an object, after which that name can be used to look up that object.
It makes no difference to the object what names, if any, it might be bound to. It might be bound to dozens of different names, or none. Also, Python does not have any "back links" that point from an object to a name.
Consider this example:
foo = 1
bar = foo
baz = foo
Now, suppose you have the integer object with value 1, and you want to work backwards and find its name. What would you print? Three different names have that object bound to them, and all are equally valid.
print(bar is foo) # prints True
print(baz is foo) # prints True
In Python, a name is a way to access an object, so there is no way to work with names directly. You could search through various name spaces until you find a name that is bound with the object of interest, but I don't recommend this.
How do I get the string representation of a variable in python?
There is a famous presentation called "Code Like a Pythonista" that summarizes this situation as "Other languages have 'variables'" and "Python has 'names'"
http://python.net/~goodger/projects/pycon/2007/idiomatic/handout.html#other-languages-have-variables
If you want an unique instance name for a class, try __repr__() or id(self)
class Some:
def __init__(self):
print(self.__repr__()) # = hex(id(self))
print(id(self))
It will print the memory address of the instance, which is unique.
Inspired by the answers of unutbu and Saullo Castro, I have created a more sophisticated class that can even be subclassed. It solves what was asked for in the question.
"create a default value based on the instance name of the class
without passing in an extra argument."
Here's what it does, when an instance of this class or a subclass is created:
Go up in the frame stack until the first frame which does not belong to a method of the current instance.
Inspect this frame to get the attributes self.creation_(name/file/module/function/line/text).
Perform an an additional check whether an object with name self.creation_name was actually defined in the frame's locals() namespace to make 100% sure the found creation_name is correct or raise an error otherwise.
The Code:
import traceback, threading, time
class InstanceCreationError(Exception):
pass
class RememberInstanceCreationInfo:
def __init__(self):
for frame, line in traceback.walk_stack(None):
varnames = frame.f_code.co_varnames
if varnames is ():
break
if frame.f_locals[varnames[0]] not in (self, self.__class__):
break
# if the frame is inside a method of this instance,
# the first argument usually contains either the instance or
# its class
# we want to find the first frame, where this is not the case
else:
raise InstanceCreationError("No suitable outer frame found.")
self._outer_frame = frame
self.creation_module = frame.f_globals["__name__"]
self.creation_file, self.creation_line, self.creation_function, \
self.creation_text = \
traceback.extract_stack(frame, 1)[0]
self.creation_name = self.creation_text.split("=")[0].strip()
super().__init__()
threading.Thread(target=self._check_existence_after_creation).start()
def _check_existence_after_creation(self):
while self._outer_frame.f_lineno == self.creation_line:
time.sleep(0.01)
# this is executed as soon as the line number changes
# now we can be sure the instance was actually created
error = InstanceCreationError(
"\nCreation name not found in creation frame.\ncreation_file: "
"%s \ncreation_line: %s \ncreation_text: %s\ncreation_name ("
"might be wrong): %s" % (
self.creation_file, self.creation_line, self.creation_text,
self.creation_name))
nameparts = self.creation_name.split(".")
try:
var = self._outer_frame.f_locals[nameparts[0]]
except KeyError:
raise error
finally:
del self._outer_frame
# make sure we have no permament inter frame reference
# which could hinder garbage collection
try:
for name in nameparts[1:]: var = getattr(var, name)
except AttributeError:
raise error
if var is not self: raise error
def __repr__(self):
return super().__repr__()[
:-1] + " with creation_name '%s'>" % self.creation_name
A simple example:
class MySubclass(RememberInstanceCreationInfo):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
def print_creation_info(self):
print(self.creation_name, self.creation_module, self.creation_function,
self.creation_line, self.creation_text, sep=", ")
instance = MySubclass()
instance.print_creation_info()
#out: instance, __main__, <module>, 68, instance = MySubclass()
If the creation name cannot be determined properly an error is raised:
variable, another_instance = 2, MySubclass()
# InstanceCreationError:
# Creation name not found in creation frame.
# creation_file: /.../myfile.py
# creation_line: 71
# creation_text: variable, another_instance = 2, MySubclass()
# creation_name (might be wrong): variable, another_instance
I think that names matters if they are the pointers to any object..
no matters if:
foo = 1
bar = foo
I know that foo points to 1 and bar points to the same value 1 into the same memory space.
but supose that I want to create a class with a function that adds a object to it.
Class Bag(object):
def __init__(self):
some code here...
def addItem(self,item):
self.__dict__[somewaytogetItemName] = item
So, when I instantiate the class bag like below:
newObj1 = Bag()
newObj2 = Bag()
newObj1.addItem(newObj2)I can do this to get an attribute of newObj1:
newObj1.newObj2
The best way is really to pass the name to the constructor as in the chosen answer. However, if you REALLY want to avoid asking the user to pass the name to the constructor, you can do the following hack:
If you are creating the instance with 'ThisObject = SomeObject()' from the command line, you can get the object name from the command string in command history:
import readline
import re
class SomeObject():
def __init__(self):
cmd = readline.get_history_item(readline.get_current_history_length())
self.name = re.split('=| ',cmd)[0]
If you are creating the instance using 'exec' command, you can handle this with:
if cmd[0:4] == 'exec': self.name = re.split('\'|=| ',cmd)[1] # if command performed using 'exec'
else: self.name = re.split('=| ',cmd)[0]