Properties in Python - python

whats the reason to use the variable the self._age? A similar name that doesn't link to the already used self.age?
class newprops(object):
def getage(self):
return 40
def setage(self, value):
self._age = value
age = property(getage, setage, None, None)


self.age is already occupied by the property, you need to give another name to the actual variable, which is _age here.
BTW, since Python 2.6, you could write this with decorators:
def newprops(object):
#property
def age(self):
return 40
#age.setter
def age(self, value):
self._age = value


Some object oriented languages have what is called private attributes, which cannot be accessed from outside the class methods. This is important because some attributes are not meant to be changed directly, instead, they are meant to be changed as a function of something else, or validated before they are changed. In Python you don't have private attributes, but you can implement something similar by using getters and setters to a variable which starts with underscore - Python's convention for private methods and attributes.
For instance. The hypotenuse of a rectangular triangle is given by h=sqrt(a*a+b*b), so you cannot change h directly because the relationship must hold. Also, say that a name must me in the format LASTNAME COMMA FIRSTNAME, then you have to verify that this is the case before you assign self.lastname.
The property getter allows you to get the hypotenuse, but forbids you from setting it. The property setter allows you to set a property but you can make checks before actually setting the property.
So:
class Person(object)
def __init__(self):
# The actual attribute is _name
self._name = None
#property
def name(self):
# when I ask for the name, I mean to get _name
return self._name
#name.setter
def name(self, value):
# before setting name I can ensure that it has the right format
if regex_name.match(value):
# assume you have a regular expression to check for the name
self._name = value
else:
raise ValueError('invalid name')
Another example:
class Triangle(object):
def __init__(self, a, b):
# here a and b do not need to be private because
# we can change them at will. However, you could
# make them private and ensure that they are floats
# when they are changed
self.a = a
self.b = b
#property
def h(self):
return math.sqrt(a*a+b*b)
# notice there is no h.setter - you cannot set h directly


Your example is actually nonsense because the getter returns a constant. A separate underscore-named variable in usually used in conjunction with properties, which can be
1) read-only
class C(object):
#property
def age(self):
return self._age
In this case, instance.age can only be read but not assigned to. The convention is to write to self._age internally.
2) read-write
class C(object):
#property
def age(self):
return self._age
#age.setter
def age(self, value):
assert value >= 0
self._age = value
Having getter and setter only makes sense if you have to do extra calculations or checks when assigning the value. If not, you could simply declare the variable without the underscore, as properties and instance variables are accessed in the same way (in terms of code). That's why _age and the property age of course must be named differently.


What you wrote would never be written in python. Often times, though, there are actions that need to be performed when saving a property (such as serialization), and this can be transparently cached in a property.
Since the protocol for calling a property and accessing a member are the same, the python style is to wait as long as possible to turn member variables into properties.

Related

How do getters and setters work in Python?

I am learning getters and setters , what I understand is that they are used so that no one could change the object's attributes directly. In the example
class Person:
def __init__(self, name, age):
self._name = name
self._age = age
def get_age(self):
return self._age
def set_age(self, new_age):
if isinstance(new_age, int) & new_age>0 & new_age<120:
self._age = new_age
def get_name(self):
return self._name
def __str__(self):
return 'Person[' + self._name + '] is ' + str(self._age)
p1 = Person("Sandeep", 49)
I created an object p1 where I set the age 49. As I have made a set_age function so I expect we can change the age of p1 through set_age only, not through the routine way. But it is not happening, I am able to change the age of p1 through , for example, p1._age = 35 as well. Then, what is the advantage to make set_age function, if I am still able to access the attributes directly?
I think, I am missing something, please help.

You need to tell python how to associate the getter and setter with the actual variable name. To do this you can use the builtin property function like so:
class Person
def __init__(self, name, age):
self._name = name
self._age = age
def get_age(self):
return self._age
def set_age(self, new_age):
if isinstance(new_age, int) & new_age>0 & new_age<120:
self._age = new_age
def get_name(self):
return self._name
name = property(get_name)
age = property(get_age, set_age)
def __str__(self):
return 'Person[' + self.name + '] is ' + str(self.age)
p1 = Person("Sandeep", 49)
Then instead of referring to _name and _age use name and age

The reason to use a getter and setter, is if you want to do something more complex than just set and attribute with foo.bar. In your case, set_age has an
isinstance(new_age, int) & new_age>0 & new_age<120
check, which is not possible to do with a raw attribute. (Side-note: you should use and instead of &.)
Yes, someone can still do p1._age = -1, and then their code won't work, but why would they? It just makes their code not work.
Your get_name function is less useful than the age one. It basically makes name read-only, which might or might not be useful.
When creating setters and getters in Python, it is usual to use the #property decorator. This means the functions can be called as if they were attributes, so instead of p1.get_name() you can just do p1.name. Similarly p1.set_age(3) becomes p1.age = 3.
You probably want to use the age setter in __init__, because then the age of the Person is validated when it is created.
Here is a version that makes these changes (and a couple of other readability improvements).
class Person:
def __init__(self, name, age):
self._name = name
self.age = age
#property
def age(self):
return self._age
#age.setter
def age(self, new_age):
if isinstance(new_age, int) and 0 < new_age < 120:
self._age = new_age
#property
def name(self):
return self._name
def __str__(self):
return f"Person[{self.name}] is {self.age}"
p1 = Person("Sandeep", 49)

what I understand is that they are used so that no one could change the object's attributes directly.
Your understanding is wrong. There is no magic rule that tells the python interpreter oh, this class has a setter, so direct access to the fields aren't allowed any more.
In other words: this is merely "works by convention". When you see a python class that has setter methods, then you know you should not access the fields directly, although you still can do that.
And note: python is mostly rather lenient on such things. A lot of things are "by convention" only. It is just "the nature" of python: you can do a lot of things that other languages, especially statically typed ones like Java do not allow.

Now I realise that I asked a silly question. The reason is obvious of using setters, creating functions for setting a value is a very convenient way to apply the constraints on it. In the example above, the constraint is that the age of the person should be positive and less than 120. Implementation of such constraints is not possible without setters.

Generally speaking you do not code getters and setters in python unless you specifically need them, right now. (But what if you need them later?? I'll explain that in a moment.)
Most of the time you should just define the instance variables, and then in the code that needs to use those variables, just access them directly, i.e.:
p1 = Person("Sandeep",49)
print("%s is %d years old." % (p1._name, p1._age))
# prints "Sandeep is 49 years old."
p1._age = 50
print("Now %s is %d years old." % (p1._name, p1._age))
# prints "Now Sandeep is 50 years old."
You only add getter/setter methods later, when you actually need them.
When you add the getter/setter methods later, you do not need to change any of the existing code that directly accesses the instance variables. Instead, use the #property decorator, shown in LeopardShark's answer above (https://stackoverflow.com/a/71080050/1813403).
The #property decorator does some magic code generation that makes your new getter/setter methods intercept when the existing code tries to directly access the instance variables, and send the request through your getter/setter methods instead. So the existing code will keep working but will call your new getter/setter methods instead of just messing directly with the attribute.

which one is preferable to use in oop: property definition or method definition [duplicate]

I'm doing it like:
def set_property(property,value):
def get_property(property):
or
object.property = value
value = object.property
What's the pythonic way to use getters and setters?

Try this: Python Property
The sample code is:
class C(object):
def __init__(self):
self._x = None
#property
def x(self):
"""I'm the 'x' property."""
print("getter of x called")
return self._x
#x.setter
def x(self, value):
print("setter of x called")
self._x = value
#x.deleter
def x(self):
print("deleter of x called")
del self._x
c = C()
c.x = 'foo' # setter called
foo = c.x # getter called
del c.x # deleter called

What's the pythonic way to use getters and setters?
The "Pythonic" way is not to use "getters" and "setters", but to use plain attributes, like the question demonstrates, and del for deleting (but the names are changed to protect the innocent... builtins):
value = 'something'
obj.attribute = value
value = obj.attribute
del obj.attribute
If later, you want to modify the setting and getting, you can do so without having to alter user code, by using the property decorator:
class Obj:
"""property demo"""
#
#property # first decorate the getter method
def attribute(self): # This getter method name is *the* name
return self._attribute
#
#attribute.setter # the property decorates with `.setter` now
def attribute(self, value): # name, e.g. "attribute", is the same
self._attribute = value # the "value" name isn't special
#
#attribute.deleter # decorate with `.deleter`
def attribute(self): # again, the method name is the same
del self._attribute
(Each decorator usage copies and updates the prior property object, so note that you should use the same name for each set, get, and delete function/method.)
After defining the above, the original setting, getting, and deleting code is the same:
obj = Obj()
obj.attribute = value
the_value = obj.attribute
del obj.attribute
You should avoid this:
def set_property(property,value):
def get_property(property):
Firstly, the above doesn't work, because you don't provide an argument for the instance that the property would be set to (usually self), which would be:
class Obj:
def set_property(self, property, value): # don't do this
...
def get_property(self, property): # don't do this either
...
Secondly, this duplicates the purpose of two special methods, __setattr__ and __getattr__.
Thirdly, we also have the setattr and getattr builtin functions.
setattr(object, 'property_name', value)
getattr(object, 'property_name', default_value) # default is optional
The #property decorator is for creating getters and setters.
For example, we could modify the setting behavior to place restrictions the value being set:
class Protective(object):
#property
def protected_value(self):
return self._protected_value
#protected_value.setter
def protected_value(self, value):
if acceptable(value): # e.g. type or range check
self._protected_value = value
In general, we want to avoid using property and just use direct attributes.
This is what is expected by users of Python. Following the rule of least-surprise, you should try to give your users what they expect unless you have a very compelling reason to the contrary.
Demonstration
For example, say we needed our object's protected attribute to be an integer between 0 and 100 inclusive, and prevent its deletion, with appropriate messages to inform the user of its proper usage:
class Protective(object):
"""protected property demo"""
#
def __init__(self, start_protected_value=0):
self.protected_value = start_protected_value
#
#property
def protected_value(self):
return self._protected_value
#
#protected_value.setter
def protected_value(self, value):
if value != int(value):
raise TypeError("protected_value must be an integer")
if 0 <= value <= 100:
self._protected_value = int(value)
else:
raise ValueError("protected_value must be " +
"between 0 and 100 inclusive")
#
#protected_value.deleter
def protected_value(self):
raise AttributeError("do not delete, protected_value can be set to 0")
(Note that __init__ refers to self.protected_value but the property methods refer to self._protected_value. This is so that __init__ uses the property through the public API, ensuring it is "protected".)
And usage:
>>> p1 = Protective(3)
>>> p1.protected_value
3
>>> p1 = Protective(5.0)
>>> p1.protected_value
5
>>> p2 = Protective(-5)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in __init__
File "<stdin>", line 15, in protected_value
ValueError: protectected_value must be between 0 and 100 inclusive
>>> p1.protected_value = 7.3
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 17, in protected_value
TypeError: protected_value must be an integer
>>> p1.protected_value = 101
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 15, in protected_value
ValueError: protectected_value must be between 0 and 100 inclusive
>>> del p1.protected_value
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 18, in protected_value
AttributeError: do not delete, protected_value can be set to 0
Do the names matter?
Yes they do. .setter and .deleter make copies of the original property. This allows subclasses to properly modify behavior without altering the behavior in the parent.
class Obj:
"""property demo"""
#
#property
def get_only(self):
return self._attribute
#
#get_only.setter
def get_or_set(self, value):
self._attribute = value
#
#get_or_set.deleter
def get_set_or_delete(self):
del self._attribute
Now for this to work, you have to use the respective names:
obj = Obj()
# obj.get_only = 'value' # would error
obj.get_or_set = 'value'
obj.get_set_or_delete = 'new value'
the_value = obj.get_only
del obj.get_set_or_delete
# del obj.get_or_set # would error
I'm not sure where this would be useful, but the use-case is if you want a get, set, and/or delete-only property. Probably best to stick to semantically same property having the same name.
Conclusion
Start with simple attributes.
If you later need functionality around the setting, getting, and deleting, you can add it with the property decorator.
Avoid functions named set_... and get_... - that's what properties are for.

In [1]: class test(object):
def __init__(self):
self.pants = 'pants'
#property
def p(self):
return self.pants
#p.setter
def p(self, value):
self.pants = value * 2
....:
In [2]: t = test()
In [3]: t.p
Out[3]: 'pants'
In [4]: t.p = 10
In [5]: t.p
Out[5]: 20

Using #property and #attribute.setter helps you to not only use the "pythonic" way but also to check the validity of attributes both while creating the object and when altering it.
class Person(object):
def __init__(self, p_name=None):
self.name = p_name
#property
def name(self):
return self._name
#name.setter
def name(self, new_name):
if type(new_name) == str: #type checking for name property
self._name = new_name
else:
raise Exception("Invalid value for name")
By this, you actually 'hide' _name attribute from client developers and also perform checks on name property type. Note that by following this approach even during the initiation the setter gets called. So:
p = Person(12)
Will lead to:
Exception: Invalid value for name
But:
>>>p = person('Mike')
>>>print(p.name)
Mike
>>>p.name = 'George'
>>>print(p.name)
George
>>>p.name = 2.3 # Causes an exception

This is an old question but the topic is very important and always current. In case anyone wants to go beyond simple getters/setters i have wrote an article about superpowered properties in python with support for slots, observability and reduced boilerplate code.
from objects import properties, self_properties
class Car:
with properties(locals(), 'meta') as meta:
#meta.prop(read_only=True)
def brand(self) -> str:
"""Brand"""
#meta.prop(read_only=True)
def max_speed(self) -> float:
"""Maximum car speed"""
#meta.prop(listener='_on_acceleration')
def speed(self) -> float:
"""Speed of the car"""
return 0 # Default stopped
#meta.prop(listener='_on_off_listener')
def on(self) -> bool:
"""Engine state"""
return False
def __init__(self, brand: str, max_speed: float = 200):
self_properties(self, locals())
def _on_off_listener(self, prop, old, on):
if on:
print(f"{self.brand} Turned on, Runnnnnn")
else:
self._speed = 0
print(f"{self.brand} Turned off.")
def _on_acceleration(self, prop, old, speed):
if self.on:
if speed > self.max_speed:
print(f"{self.brand} {speed}km/h Bang! Engine exploded!")
self.on = False
else:
print(f"{self.brand} New speed: {speed}km/h")
else:
print(f"{self.brand} Car is off, no speed change")
This class can be used like this:
mycar = Car('Ford')
# Car is turned off
for speed in range(0, 300, 50):
mycar.speed = speed
# Car is turned on
mycar.on = True
for speed in range(0, 350, 50):
mycar.speed = speed
This code will produce the following output:
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Turned on, Runnnnnn
Ford New speed: 0km/h
Ford New speed: 50km/h
Ford New speed: 100km/h
Ford New speed: 150km/h
Ford New speed: 200km/h
Ford 250km/h Bang! Engine exploded!
Ford Turned off.
Ford Car is off, no speed change
More info about how and why here: https://mnesarco.github.io/blog/2020/07/23/python-metaprogramming-properties-on-steroids

Properties are pretty useful since you can use them with assignment but then can include validation as well. You can see this code where you use the decorator #property and also #<property_name>.setter to create the methods:
# Python program displaying the use of #property
class AgeSet:
def __init__(self):
self._age = 0
# using property decorator a getter function
#property
def age(self):
print("getter method called")
return self._age
# a setter function
#age.setter
def age(self, a):
if(a < 18):
raise ValueError("Sorry your age is below eligibility criteria")
print("setter method called")
self._age = a
pkj = AgeSet()
pkj.age = int(input("set the age using setter: "))
print(pkj.age)
There are more details in this post I wrote about this as well: https://pythonhowtoprogram.com/how-to-create-getter-setter-class-properties-in-python-3/

You can use accessors/mutators (i.e. #attr.setter and #property) or not, but the most important thing is to be consistent!
If you're using #property to simply access an attribute, e.g.
class myClass:
def __init__(a):
self._a = a
#property
def a(self):
return self._a
use it to access every* attribute! It would be a bad practice to access some attributes using #property and leave some other properties public (i.e. name without an underscore) without an accessor, e.g. do not do
class myClass:
def __init__(a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
#property
def a(self):
return self.a
Note that self.b does not have an explicit accessor here even though it's public.
Similarly with setters (or mutators), feel free to use #attribute.setter but be consistent! When you do e.g.
class myClass:
def __init__(a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
#a.setter
def a(self, value):
return self.a = value
It's hard for me to guess your intention. On one hand you're saying that both a and b are public (no leading underscore in their names) so I should theoretically be allowed to access/mutate (get/set) both. But then you specify an explicit mutator only for a, which tells me that maybe I should not be able to set b. Since you've provided an explicit mutator I am not sure if the lack of explicit accessor (#property) means I should not be able to access either of those variables or you were simply being frugal in using #property.
*The exception is when you explicitly want to make some variables accessible or mutable but not both or you want to perform some additional logic when accessing or mutating an attribute. This is when I am personally using #property and #attribute.setter (otherwise no explicit acessors/mutators for public attributes).
Lastly, PEP8 and Google Style Guide suggestions:
PEP8, Designing for Inheritance says:
For simple public data attributes, it is best to expose just the attribute name, without complicated accessor/mutator methods. Keep in mind that Python provides an easy path to future enhancement, should you find that a simple data attribute needs to grow functional behavior. In that case, use properties to hide functional implementation behind simple data attribute access syntax.
On the other hand, according to Google Style Guide Python Language Rules/Properties the recommendation is to:
Use properties in new code to access or set data where you would normally have used simple, lightweight accessor or setter methods. Properties should be created with the #property decorator.
The pros of this approach:
Readability is increased by eliminating explicit get and set method calls for simple attribute access. Allows calculations to be lazy. Considered the Pythonic way to maintain the interface of a class. In terms of performance, allowing properties bypasses needing trivial accessor methods when a direct variable access is reasonable. This also allows accessor methods to be added in the future without breaking the interface.
and cons:
Must inherit from object in Python 2. Can hide side-effects much like operator overloading. Can be confusing for subclasses.

You can use the magic methods __getattribute__ and __setattr__.
class MyClass:
def __init__(self, attrvalue):
self.myattr = attrvalue
def __getattribute__(self, attr):
if attr == "myattr":
#Getter for myattr
def __setattr__(self, attr):
if attr == "myattr":
#Setter for myattr
Be aware that __getattr__ and __getattribute__ are not the same. __getattr__ is only invoked when the attribute is not found.

How to overwrite self after reading yaml? [duplicate]

I would like to replace an object instance by another instance inside a method like this:
class A:
def method1(self):
self = func(self)
The object is retrieved from a database.

It is unlikely that replacing the 'self' variable will accomplish whatever you're trying to do, that couldn't just be accomplished by storing the result of func(self) in a different variable. 'self' is effectively a local variable only defined for the duration of the method call, used to pass in the instance of the class which is being operated upon. Replacing self will not actually replace references to the original instance of the class held by other objects, nor will it create a lasting reference to the new instance which was assigned to it.

As far as I understand, If you are trying to replace the current object with another object of same type (assuming func won't change the object type) from an member function. I think this will achieve that:
class A:
def method1(self):
newObj = func(self)
self.__dict__.update(newObj.__dict__)

It is not a direct answer to the question, but in the posts below there's a solution for what amirouche tried to do:
Python object conversion
Can I dynamically convert an instance of one class to another?
And here's working code sample (Python 3.2.5).
class Men:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def who_are_you(self):
print("I'm a men! My name is " + self.name)
def cast_to(self, sex, name):
self.__class__ = sex
self.name = name
def method_unique_to_men(self):
print('I made The Matrix')
class Women:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def who_are_you(self):
print("I'm a women! My name is " + self.name)
def cast_to(self, sex, name):
self.__class__ = sex
self.name = name
def method_unique_to_women(self):
print('I made Cloud Atlas')
men = Men('Larry')
men.who_are_you()
#>>> I'm a men! My name is Larry
men.method_unique_to_men()
#>>> I made The Matrix
men.cast_to(Women, 'Lana')
men.who_are_you()
#>>> I'm a women! My name is Lana
men.method_unique_to_women()
#>>> I made Cloud Atlas
Note the self.__class__ and not self.__class__.__name__. I.e. this technique not only replaces class name, but actually converts an instance of a class (at least both of them have same id()). Also, 1) I don't know whether it is "safe to replace a self object by another object of the same type in [an object own] method"; 2) it works with different types of objects, not only with ones that are of the same type; 3) it works not exactly like amirouche wanted: you can't init class like Class(args), only Class() (I'm not a pro and can't answer why it's like this).

Yes, all that will happen is that you won't be able to reference the current instance of your class A (unless you set another variable to self before you change it.) I wouldn't recommend it though, it makes for less readable code.
Note that you're only changing a variable, just like any other. Doing self = 123 is the same as doing abc = 123. self is only a reference to the current instance within the method. You can't change your instance by setting self.
What func(self) should do is to change the variables of your instance:
def func(obj):
obj.var_a = 123
obj.var_b = 'abc'
Then do this:
class A:
def method1(self):
func(self) # No need to assign self here

In many cases, a good way to achieve what you want is to call __init__ again. For example:
class MyList(list):
def trim(self,n):
self.__init__(self[:-n])
x = MyList([1,2,3,4])
x.trim(2)
assert type(x) == MyList
assert x == [1,2]
Note that this comes with a few assumptions such as the all that you want to change about the object being set in __init__. Also beware that this could cause problems with inheriting classes that redefine __init__ in an incompatible manner.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with this. Haters gonna hate. (Looking at you Pycharm with your in most cases imaginable, there's no point in such reassignment and it indicates an error).
A situation where you could do this is:
some_method(self, ...):
...
if(some_condition):
self = self.some_other_method()
...
return ...
Sure, you could start the method body by reassigning self to some other variable, but if you wouldn't normally do that with other parametres, why do it with self?

One can use the self assignment in a method, to change the class of instance to a derived class.
Of course one could assign it to a new object, but then the use of the new object ripples through the rest of code in the method. Reassiging it to self, leaves the rest of the method untouched.
class aclass:
def methodA(self):
...
if condition:
self = replace_by_derived(self)
# self is now referencing to an instance of a derived class
# with probably the same values for its data attributes
# all code here remains untouched
...
self.methodB() # calls the methodB of derivedclass is condition is True
...
def methodB(self):
# methodB of class aclass
...
class derivedclass(aclass):
def methodB(self):
#methodB of class derivedclass
...
But apart from such a special use case, I don't see any advantages to replace self.

You can make the instance a singleton element of the class
and mark the methods with #classmethod.
from enum import IntEnum
from collections import namedtuple
class kind(IntEnum):
circle = 1
square = 2
def attr(y): return [getattr(y, x) for x in 'k l b u r'.split()]
class Shape(namedtuple('Shape', 'k,l,b,u,r')):
self = None
#classmethod
def __repr__(cls):
return "<Shape({},{},{},{},{}) object at {}>".format(
*(attr(cls.self)+[id(cls.self)]))
#classmethod
def transform(cls, func):
cls.self = cls.self._replace(**func(cls.self))
Shape.self = Shape(k=1, l=2, b=3, u=4, r=5)
s = Shape.self
def nextkind(self):
return {'k': self.k+1}
print(repr(s)) # <Shape(1,2,3,4,5) object at 139766656561792>
s.transform(nextkind)
print(repr(s)) # <Shape(2,2,3,4,5) object at 139766656561888>

Python property in __init__ with double assignment [duplicate]

I'm doing it like:
def set_property(property,value):
def get_property(property):
or
object.property = value
value = object.property
What's the pythonic way to use getters and setters?

Try this: Python Property
The sample code is:
class C(object):
def __init__(self):
self._x = None
#property
def x(self):
"""I'm the 'x' property."""
print("getter of x called")
return self._x
#x.setter
def x(self, value):
print("setter of x called")
self._x = value
#x.deleter
def x(self):
print("deleter of x called")
del self._x
c = C()
c.x = 'foo' # setter called
foo = c.x # getter called
del c.x # deleter called

What's the pythonic way to use getters and setters?
The "Pythonic" way is not to use "getters" and "setters", but to use plain attributes, like the question demonstrates, and del for deleting (but the names are changed to protect the innocent... builtins):
value = 'something'
obj.attribute = value
value = obj.attribute
del obj.attribute
If later, you want to modify the setting and getting, you can do so without having to alter user code, by using the property decorator:
class Obj:
"""property demo"""
#
#property # first decorate the getter method
def attribute(self): # This getter method name is *the* name
return self._attribute
#
#attribute.setter # the property decorates with `.setter` now
def attribute(self, value): # name, e.g. "attribute", is the same
self._attribute = value # the "value" name isn't special
#
#attribute.deleter # decorate with `.deleter`
def attribute(self): # again, the method name is the same
del self._attribute
(Each decorator usage copies and updates the prior property object, so note that you should use the same name for each set, get, and delete function/method.)
After defining the above, the original setting, getting, and deleting code is the same:
obj = Obj()
obj.attribute = value
the_value = obj.attribute
del obj.attribute
You should avoid this:
def set_property(property,value):
def get_property(property):
Firstly, the above doesn't work, because you don't provide an argument for the instance that the property would be set to (usually self), which would be:
class Obj:
def set_property(self, property, value): # don't do this
...
def get_property(self, property): # don't do this either
...
Secondly, this duplicates the purpose of two special methods, __setattr__ and __getattr__.
Thirdly, we also have the setattr and getattr builtin functions.
setattr(object, 'property_name', value)
getattr(object, 'property_name', default_value) # default is optional
The #property decorator is for creating getters and setters.
For example, we could modify the setting behavior to place restrictions the value being set:
class Protective(object):
#property
def protected_value(self):
return self._protected_value
#protected_value.setter
def protected_value(self, value):
if acceptable(value): # e.g. type or range check
self._protected_value = value
In general, we want to avoid using property and just use direct attributes.
This is what is expected by users of Python. Following the rule of least-surprise, you should try to give your users what they expect unless you have a very compelling reason to the contrary.
Demonstration
For example, say we needed our object's protected attribute to be an integer between 0 and 100 inclusive, and prevent its deletion, with appropriate messages to inform the user of its proper usage:
class Protective(object):
"""protected property demo"""
#
def __init__(self, start_protected_value=0):
self.protected_value = start_protected_value
#
#property
def protected_value(self):
return self._protected_value
#
#protected_value.setter
def protected_value(self, value):
if value != int(value):
raise TypeError("protected_value must be an integer")
if 0 <= value <= 100:
self._protected_value = int(value)
else:
raise ValueError("protected_value must be " +
"between 0 and 100 inclusive")
#
#protected_value.deleter
def protected_value(self):
raise AttributeError("do not delete, protected_value can be set to 0")
(Note that __init__ refers to self.protected_value but the property methods refer to self._protected_value. This is so that __init__ uses the property through the public API, ensuring it is "protected".)
And usage:
>>> p1 = Protective(3)
>>> p1.protected_value
3
>>> p1 = Protective(5.0)
>>> p1.protected_value
5
>>> p2 = Protective(-5)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in __init__
File "<stdin>", line 15, in protected_value
ValueError: protectected_value must be between 0 and 100 inclusive
>>> p1.protected_value = 7.3
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 17, in protected_value
TypeError: protected_value must be an integer
>>> p1.protected_value = 101
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 15, in protected_value
ValueError: protectected_value must be between 0 and 100 inclusive
>>> del p1.protected_value
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 18, in protected_value
AttributeError: do not delete, protected_value can be set to 0
Do the names matter?
Yes they do. .setter and .deleter make copies of the original property. This allows subclasses to properly modify behavior without altering the behavior in the parent.
class Obj:
"""property demo"""
#
#property
def get_only(self):
return self._attribute
#
#get_only.setter
def get_or_set(self, value):
self._attribute = value
#
#get_or_set.deleter
def get_set_or_delete(self):
del self._attribute
Now for this to work, you have to use the respective names:
obj = Obj()
# obj.get_only = 'value' # would error
obj.get_or_set = 'value'
obj.get_set_or_delete = 'new value'
the_value = obj.get_only
del obj.get_set_or_delete
# del obj.get_or_set # would error
I'm not sure where this would be useful, but the use-case is if you want a get, set, and/or delete-only property. Probably best to stick to semantically same property having the same name.
Conclusion
Start with simple attributes.
If you later need functionality around the setting, getting, and deleting, you can add it with the property decorator.
Avoid functions named set_... and get_... - that's what properties are for.

In [1]: class test(object):
def __init__(self):
self.pants = 'pants'
#property
def p(self):
return self.pants
#p.setter
def p(self, value):
self.pants = value * 2
....:
In [2]: t = test()
In [3]: t.p
Out[3]: 'pants'
In [4]: t.p = 10
In [5]: t.p
Out[5]: 20

Using #property and #attribute.setter helps you to not only use the "pythonic" way but also to check the validity of attributes both while creating the object and when altering it.
class Person(object):
def __init__(self, p_name=None):
self.name = p_name
#property
def name(self):
return self._name
#name.setter
def name(self, new_name):
if type(new_name) == str: #type checking for name property
self._name = new_name
else:
raise Exception("Invalid value for name")
By this, you actually 'hide' _name attribute from client developers and also perform checks on name property type. Note that by following this approach even during the initiation the setter gets called. So:
p = Person(12)
Will lead to:
Exception: Invalid value for name
But:
>>>p = person('Mike')
>>>print(p.name)
Mike
>>>p.name = 'George'
>>>print(p.name)
George
>>>p.name = 2.3 # Causes an exception

This is an old question but the topic is very important and always current. In case anyone wants to go beyond simple getters/setters i have wrote an article about superpowered properties in python with support for slots, observability and reduced boilerplate code.
from objects import properties, self_properties
class Car:
with properties(locals(), 'meta') as meta:
#meta.prop(read_only=True)
def brand(self) -> str:
"""Brand"""
#meta.prop(read_only=True)
def max_speed(self) -> float:
"""Maximum car speed"""
#meta.prop(listener='_on_acceleration')
def speed(self) -> float:
"""Speed of the car"""
return 0 # Default stopped
#meta.prop(listener='_on_off_listener')
def on(self) -> bool:
"""Engine state"""
return False
def __init__(self, brand: str, max_speed: float = 200):
self_properties(self, locals())
def _on_off_listener(self, prop, old, on):
if on:
print(f"{self.brand} Turned on, Runnnnnn")
else:
self._speed = 0
print(f"{self.brand} Turned off.")
def _on_acceleration(self, prop, old, speed):
if self.on:
if speed > self.max_speed:
print(f"{self.brand} {speed}km/h Bang! Engine exploded!")
self.on = False
else:
print(f"{self.brand} New speed: {speed}km/h")
else:
print(f"{self.brand} Car is off, no speed change")
This class can be used like this:
mycar = Car('Ford')
# Car is turned off
for speed in range(0, 300, 50):
mycar.speed = speed
# Car is turned on
mycar.on = True
for speed in range(0, 350, 50):
mycar.speed = speed
This code will produce the following output:
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Car is off, no speed change
Ford Turned on, Runnnnnn
Ford New speed: 0km/h
Ford New speed: 50km/h
Ford New speed: 100km/h
Ford New speed: 150km/h
Ford New speed: 200km/h
Ford 250km/h Bang! Engine exploded!
Ford Turned off.
Ford Car is off, no speed change
More info about how and why here: https://mnesarco.github.io/blog/2020/07/23/python-metaprogramming-properties-on-steroids

Properties are pretty useful since you can use them with assignment but then can include validation as well. You can see this code where you use the decorator #property and also #<property_name>.setter to create the methods:
# Python program displaying the use of #property
class AgeSet:
def __init__(self):
self._age = 0
# using property decorator a getter function
#property
def age(self):
print("getter method called")
return self._age
# a setter function
#age.setter
def age(self, a):
if(a < 18):
raise ValueError("Sorry your age is below eligibility criteria")
print("setter method called")
self._age = a
pkj = AgeSet()
pkj.age = int(input("set the age using setter: "))
print(pkj.age)
There are more details in this post I wrote about this as well: https://pythonhowtoprogram.com/how-to-create-getter-setter-class-properties-in-python-3/

You can use accessors/mutators (i.e. #attr.setter and #property) or not, but the most important thing is to be consistent!
If you're using #property to simply access an attribute, e.g.
class myClass:
def __init__(a):
self._a = a
#property
def a(self):
return self._a
use it to access every* attribute! It would be a bad practice to access some attributes using #property and leave some other properties public (i.e. name without an underscore) without an accessor, e.g. do not do
class myClass:
def __init__(a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
#property
def a(self):
return self.a
Note that self.b does not have an explicit accessor here even though it's public.
Similarly with setters (or mutators), feel free to use #attribute.setter but be consistent! When you do e.g.
class myClass:
def __init__(a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
#a.setter
def a(self, value):
return self.a = value
It's hard for me to guess your intention. On one hand you're saying that both a and b are public (no leading underscore in their names) so I should theoretically be allowed to access/mutate (get/set) both. But then you specify an explicit mutator only for a, which tells me that maybe I should not be able to set b. Since you've provided an explicit mutator I am not sure if the lack of explicit accessor (#property) means I should not be able to access either of those variables or you were simply being frugal in using #property.
*The exception is when you explicitly want to make some variables accessible or mutable but not both or you want to perform some additional logic when accessing or mutating an attribute. This is when I am personally using #property and #attribute.setter (otherwise no explicit acessors/mutators for public attributes).
Lastly, PEP8 and Google Style Guide suggestions:
PEP8, Designing for Inheritance says:
For simple public data attributes, it is best to expose just the attribute name, without complicated accessor/mutator methods. Keep in mind that Python provides an easy path to future enhancement, should you find that a simple data attribute needs to grow functional behavior. In that case, use properties to hide functional implementation behind simple data attribute access syntax.
On the other hand, according to Google Style Guide Python Language Rules/Properties the recommendation is to:
Use properties in new code to access or set data where you would normally have used simple, lightweight accessor or setter methods. Properties should be created with the #property decorator.
The pros of this approach:
Readability is increased by eliminating explicit get and set method calls for simple attribute access. Allows calculations to be lazy. Considered the Pythonic way to maintain the interface of a class. In terms of performance, allowing properties bypasses needing trivial accessor methods when a direct variable access is reasonable. This also allows accessor methods to be added in the future without breaking the interface.
and cons:
Must inherit from object in Python 2. Can hide side-effects much like operator overloading. Can be confusing for subclasses.

You can use the magic methods __getattribute__ and __setattr__.
class MyClass:
def __init__(self, attrvalue):
self.myattr = attrvalue
def __getattribute__(self, attr):
if attr == "myattr":
#Getter for myattr
def __setattr__(self, attr):
if attr == "myattr":
#Setter for myattr
Be aware that __getattr__ and __getattribute__ are not the same. __getattr__ is only invoked when the attribute is not found.

Prevent access to an instance variable from subclass, without affecting base class

Say I have a simple class Foo, which comes from an external library, thus I cannot change it directly:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
I want to create a subclass Bar and prevent x from being change from an instance of Bar, but still use the x in Bar's methods.
Here's what I tried, and it will probably enlighten the basic idea, but unfortunately it doesn't work:
class Bar(Foo):
#property
def x(self):
return super().x
#x.setter
def x(self, value):
raise NotImplementedError('Do not change x directly, use "do_stuff()" instead')
def do_stuff(self, value):
if <something>:
super().x = value
So basically I've created some wrapper functions (do_stuff()) around an attribute, and now I want to prevent the attribute from being changed directly, as it might mess up some functionality of the wrapper functions. Is this possible in a reasonable way?
Edited with a better example of what I want. I'm not trying to prevent them from seeing the variable x, but instead changing it from outside of do_stuff()

This should be much simpler to accomplish if you are willing to avoid inheritance altogether:
def main():
bar = Bar(123)
bar.fizz()
bar.buzz()
bar.fizz()
bar.set_x(456)
print('bar.x =', bar.x)
try:
bar.x = 123
except AttributeError:
print('bar.x cannot be set directly')
else:
raise AssertionError('an AttributeError should have been raised')
bar.mutate_x(789)
bar.fizz()
bar.set_x(0)
bar.fizz()
bar.mutate_x(1)
bar.fizz()
bar.set_x('Hello World')
bar.fizz()
class Foo:
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
def fizz(self):
print(self.x)
def buzz(self):
self.x = None
class Bar:
def __init__(self, x):
self.__foo = foo = Foo(x)
self.__copy_methods(foo)
def __copy_methods(self, obj):
for name in dir(obj):
if name.startswith('__') or name.endswith('__'):
continue
attr = getattr(obj, name)
if callable(attr):
setattr(self, name, attr)
#property
def x(self):
return self.__foo.x
def set_x(self, value):
if isinstance(value, int) and value > 0:
self.__foo.x = value
mutate_x = set_x
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()

The short answer is: No, this is not possible in a reasonable way.
Python's guiding principle here, to use the phrasing from the style guide is that we are all responsible users. Meaning that code is trusted not to do silly things, and people should generally avoid messing with members of other people's classes without a good reason.
The first and best way to prevent people from accidentally changing a value is to mark it using the single underscore (_variable). This however may not offer you the protection you want against accidental modification of your variables.
The next step up in protection is to use a double underscore. Quoting from PEP-8:
To avoid name clashes with subclasses, use two leading underscores to invoke Python's name mangling rules.
Python mangles these names with the class name: if class Foo has an attribute named __a , it cannot be accessed by Foo.__a . (An insistent user could still gain access by calling Foo._Foo__a .) Generally, double leading underscores should be used only to avoid name conflicts with attributes in classes designed to be subclassed.
The mangling makes it more difficult to accidentally overwrite a value.
I added emphasis to that last sentence because it is important. Using this mechanism for preventing accidental access to a member is not really the something that should be done for a lot of members.
In your specific case, the way that I'd solve the problem would be to not subclass at all. Consider:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
class Bar():
def __init__(self, x):
self._foo = Foo(x)
#property
def x(self):
return self._foo.x
def do_stuff(self, value):
# Validate the value, and the wrapped object's state
if valid:
self._foo.x = value
Of course this means that Bar has to wrap all of Foo's methods that you want to wrap. Yes, someone could still,
b = Bar(100)
b._foo.x = 127 # shame on them :)
or
b = Bar(100)
b._foo = EvilFoo(127)
but it's harder to unintentionally do.

You're on the right track, you want to make x a property instead of having it be an attribute in the subclass. Where you went wrong was trying to store the raw data for x on super. What you want to do is exploit the fact that the parent class can use the new property of the subclass transparently and does not need to know that it is now a property and not a attribute. Something like this should work for you:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
class Bar(Foo):
_protected_x = None
#property
def x(self):
return self._protected_x
#x.setter
def x(self, value):
if self._protected_x is None:
self._protected_x = value
else:
raise ValueError("Use set_x to change x.")
def set_x(self, value):
self._protected_x = value
b = Bar(12)
print b.x
b.set_x(5)
print b.x

Categories