How can I quickly disable all methods in a class instance based on a condition? My naive solution is to override using the __getattr__ but this is not called when the function name exists already.
class my():
def method1(self):
print 'method1'
def method2(self):
print 'method2'
def __getattr__(self, name):
print 'Fetching '+str(name)
if self.isValid():
return getattr(self, name)
def isValid(self):
return False
if __name__ == '__main__':
m=my()
m.method1()
The equivalent of what you want to do is actually to override __getattribute__, which is going to be called for every attribute access. Besides it being very slow, take care: by definition of every, that includes e.g. the call to self.isValid within __getattribute__'s own body, so you'll have to use some circuitous route to access that attribute (type(self).isValid(self) should work, for example, as it gets the attribute from the class, not from the instance).
This points to a horrible terminological confusion: this is not disabling "method from a class", but from an instance, and in particular has nothing to do with classmethods. If you do want to work in a similar way on a class basis, rather than an instance basis, you'll need to make a custom metaclass and override __getattribute__ on the metaclass (that's the one that's called when you access attributes on the class -- as you're asking in your title and text -- rather than on the instance -- as you in fact appear to be doing, which is by far the more normal and usual case).
Edit: a completely different approach might be to use a peculiarly Pythonic pathway to implementing the State design pattern: class-switching. E.g.:
class _NotValid(object):
def isValid(self):
return False
def setValid(self, yesno):
if yesno:
self.__class__ = TheGoodOne
class TheGoodOne(object):
def isValid(self):
return True
def setValid(self, yesno):
if not yesno:
self.__class__ = _NotValid
# write all other methods here
As long as you can call setValid appropriately, so that the object's __class__ is switched appropriately, this is very fast and simple -- essentially, the object's __class__ is where all the object's methods are found, so by switching it you switch, en masse, the set of methods that exist on the object at a given time. However, this does not work if you absolutely insist that validity checking must be performed "just in time", i.e. at the very instant the object's method is being looked up.
An intermediate approach between this and the __getattribute__ one would be to introduce an extra level of indirection (which is popularly held to be the solution to all problems;-), along the lines of:
class _Valid(object):
def __init__(self, actualobject):
self._actualobject = actualobject
# all actual methods go here
# keeping state in self._actualobject
class Wrapit(object):
def __init__(self):
self._themethods = _Valid(self)
def isValid(self):
# whatever logic you want
# (DON'T call other self. methods!-)
return False
def __getattr__(self, n):
if self.isValid():
return getattr(self._themethods, n)
raise AttributeError(n)
This is more idiomatic than __getattribute__ because it relies on the fact that __getattr__ is only called for attributes that aren't found in other ways -- so the object can hold normal state (data) in its __dict__, and that will be accessed without any big overhead; only method calls pay the extra overhead of indiretion. The _Valid class instances can keep some or all state in their respective self._actualobject, if any of the state needs to stay accessible on invalid objects (so that the invalid state disable methods, but not data attributes access; it's not clear from your Q if that's needed, but it's a free extra possibility offered by this approach). This idiom is less error-prone than __getattribute__, since state can be accessed more directly in the methods (without triggering validity checks).
As presented, the solution creates a circular reference loop, which may impose a bit of overhead in terms of garbage collection. If that's a problem in your application, use the weakref module from the standard Python library, of course -- that module is generally the simplest way to remove circular loops of references, if and when they're a problem.
(E.g., make the _actualobject attribute of _Valid class instances a weak reference to the object that holds that instance as its _themethods attribute).
Related
I have a class whose methods may or may not be auto-generated. I want to be able to call these methods from a subclass, but can't figure out how to do that.
Consider this code:
class Upgrader:
max = 99
def _upgrade_no_op(self, db):
if self.version < Upgrader.max:
self.version += 1
def __getattribute__(self, key):
try:
return super().__getattribute__(key)
except AttributeError:
if key.startswith("upgrade_v"):
nr = int(key[9:])
if 0 <= nr < self.max:
return self._upgrade_no_op
raise
class Foo(Upgrader):
version = 1
def upgrade_v2(self):
# None of these work:
# Upgrade.upgrade_v2(self)
# super().upgrade_v2()
# super(Foo,self).upgrade_v2()
# x = Upgrade.__getattribute__(self, "upgrade_v2"); # bound to Foo.upgrade_v2
breakpoint()
Foo().upgrade_v2()
In my real code there are one or two other classes between Foo and Upgrader, but you get the idea.
Is there a way to do this, preferably without writing my own version of super()?
You have a few problems:
return super().__getattribute__(key) looks for __getattribute__ on a superclass (typically object), but the actual lookup of key is a plain lookup, it's not bypassing classes in the MRO, it's just restarting the lookup from first class in the MRO (the one that self is actually an instance of). super() is magic once; it'll skip past earlier classes in the MRO to perform the lookup that one time, then it's done. This is what you want when the attribute exists and you're being called from outside the class's methods (Foo().update_v2()'s initial call is going through Updater.__getattribute__ to find Foo.update_v2 in the first place), but when Foo.update_v2 tries to invoke a "maybe doesn't exist" parent version of update_v2, even when you manage to invoke the parent __getattribute__ (e.g. by directly invoking Upgrader.__getattribute__(self, "upgrade_v2")()), it's just going to give you Foo.update_v2 again, leading to infinite recursion.
super() bypasses a lot of the dynamic lookup machinery; it will find only things with the appropriate name attached to each class after the one invoking it in the MRO, but it won't try invoking __getattr__ or __getattribute__ on each of those classes as it goes (that would slow things down dramatically, and complicate the code significantly). It's already generally a bad idea to rely on __getattribute__ to provide what amounts to core class functionality; having it dynamically intercept all lookups to insert things into the middle of inheritance chains during lookup is at best some truly intense code smell.
99.99%+ of the time, you don't want dynamic lookup handling at all, and in the rare cases you do, you almost always want __getattr__ (which is only invoked when the name can't be found in any other way), not __getattribute__ (which is invoked unconditionally).
Neither special method works with super()-triggered lookups the way you want though, so if you truly needed something like this, you'd be stuck re-implementing what super() is doing manually, but adding in dynamic lookup special method support as well (working over the instance's MRO manually, looking for what you want from each class, then if it lacks it, manually invoking __getattr__/__getattribute__ to see if it can generate it, then moving on to the next class if that fails too). This is insane; do not try to do it.
I strongly suspect you have an XY problem here. What you're trying to do is inherently brittle, and only makes any kind of sense in a complicated inheritance hierarchy where super().upgrade_v2() in Foo.upgrade_v2 might actually find a useful function in some class that is inherited along with Foo by some hypothetical third class that involves a diamond inheritance pattern leading back to Upgrader. That's already complicated enough, and now you're adding __getattribute__ (which slows every use of the class instances, and has a ton of pitfalls of its own even without inheritance of any kind); it's a bad idea.
If, as in this case, you have a smallish fixed set of methods that should exist, just generate them up front, and avoid __getattribute__ entirely:
class Upgrader:
max = 99
def _upgrade_no_op(self):
if self.version < Upgrader.max:
self.version += 1
# Dynamically bind _upgrade_no_op to each name we intend to support on Upgrader
for i in range(Upgrader.max):
setattr(Upgrader, f'upgrade_v{i}', Upgrader._upgrade_no_op)
class Foo(Upgrader):
version = 1
def upgrade_v2(self):
# Upgrade.upgrade_v2(self)
super().upgrade_v2() # Works just fine
f = Foo()
print(f.version) # See original version of 1 here
f.upgrade_v2()
print(f.version) # See updated version of 2 here
Try it online!
You code will work, run dramatically faster (no Python level function calls involved in every attribute and method lookup), and it won't drive maintainers insane trying to figure out what you're doing.
I have a class
class A:
def sample_method():
I would like to decorate class A sample_method() and override the contents of sample_method()
class DecoratedA(A):
def sample_method():
The setup above resembles inheritance, but I need to keep the preexisting instance of class A when the decorated function is used.
a # preexisting instance of class A
decorated_a = DecoratedA(a)
decorated_a.functionInClassA() #functions in Class A called as usual with preexisting instance
decorated_a.sample_method() #should call the overwritten sample_method() defined in DecoratedA
What is the proper way to go about this?
There isn't a straightforward way to do what you're asking. Generally, after an instance has been created, it's too late to mess with the methods its class defines.
There are two options you have, as far as I see it. Either you create a wrapper or proxy object for your pre-existing instance, or you modify the instance to change its behavior.
A proxy defers most behavior to the object itself, while only adding (or overriding) some limited behavior of its own:
class Proxy:
def __init__(self, obj):
self.obj = obj
def overridden_method(self): # add your own limited behavior for a few things
do_stuff()
def __getattr__(self, name): # and hand everything else off to the other object
return getattr(self.obj, name)
__getattr__ isn't perfect here, it can only work for regular methods, not special __dunder__ methods that are often looked up directly in the class itself. If you want your proxy to match all possible behavior, you probably need to add things like __add__ and __getitem__, but that might not be necessary in your specific situation (it depends on what A does).
As for changing the behavior of the existing object, one approach is to write your subclass, and then change the existing object's class to be the subclass. This is a little sketchy, since you won't have ever initialized the object as the new class, but it might work if you're only modifying method behavior.
class ModifiedA(A):
def overridden_method(self): # do the override in a normal subclass
do_stuff()
def modify_obj(obj): # then change an existing object's type in place!
obj.__class__ = ModifiedA # this is not terribly safe, but it can work
You could also consider adding an instance variable that would shadow the method you want to override, rather than modifying __class__. Writing the function could be a little tricky, since it won't get bound to the object automatically when called (that only happens for functions that are attributes of a class, not attributes of an instance), but you could probably do the binding yourself (with partial or lambda if you need to access self.
First, why not just define it from the beginning, how you want it, instead of decorating it?
Second, why not decorate the method itself?
To answer the question:
You can reassign it
class A:
def sample_method(): ...
pass
A.sample_method = DecoratedA.sample_method;
but that affects every instance.
Another solution is to reassign the method for just one object.
import functools;
a.sample_method = functools.partial(DecoratedA.sample_method, a);
Another solution is to (temporarily) change the type of an existing object.
a = A();
a.__class__ = DecoratedA;
a.sample_method();
a.__class__ = A;
I just can't see why do we need to use #staticmethod. Let's start with an exmaple.
class test1:
def __init__(self,value):
self.value=value
#staticmethod
def static_add_one(value):
return value+1
#property
def new_val(self):
self.value=self.static_add_one(self.value)
return self.value
a=test1(3)
print(a.new_val) ## >>> 4
class test2:
def __init__(self,value):
self.value=value
def static_add_one(self,value):
return value+1
#property
def new_val(self):
self.value=self.static_add_one(self.value)
return self.value
b=test2(3)
print(b.new_val) ## >>> 4
In the example above, the method, static_add_one , in the two classes do not require the instance of the class(self) in calculation.
The method static_add_one in the class test1 is decorated by #staticmethod and work properly.
But at the same time, the method static_add_one in the class test2 which has no #staticmethod decoration also works properly by using a trick that provides a self in the argument but doesn't use it at all.
So what is the benefit of using #staticmethod? Does it improve the performance? Or is it just due to the zen of python which states that "Explicit is better than implicit"?
The reason to use staticmethod is if you have something that could be written as a standalone function (not part of any class), but you want to keep it within the class because it's somehow semantically related to the class. (For instance, it could be a function that doesn't require any information from the class, but whose behavior is specific to the class, so that subclasses might want to override it.) In many cases, it could make just as much sense to write something as a standalone function instead of a staticmethod.
Your example isn't really the same. A key difference is that, even though you don't use self, you still need an instance to call static_add_one --- you can't call it directly on the class with test2.static_add_one(1). So there is a genuine difference in behavior there. The most serious "rival" to a staticmethod isn't a regular method that ignores self, but a standalone function.
Today I suddenly find a benefit of using #staticmethod.
If you created a staticmethod within a class, you don't need to create an instance of the class before using the staticmethod.
For example,
class File1:
def __init__(self, path):
out=self.parse(path)
def parse(self, path):
..parsing works..
return x
class File2:
def __init__(self, path):
out=self.parse(path)
#staticmethod
def parse(path):
..parsing works..
return x
if __name__=='__main__':
path='abc.txt'
File1.parse(path) #TypeError: unbound method parse() ....
File2.parse(path) #Goal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since the method parse is strongly related to the classes File1 and File2, it is more natural to put it inside the class. However, sometimes this parse method may also be used in other classes under some circumstances. If you want to do so using File1, you must create an instance of File1 before calling the method parse. While using staticmethod in the class File2, you may directly call the method by using the syntax File2.parse.
This makes your works more convenient and natural.
I will add something other answers didn't mention. It's not only a matter of modularity, of putting something next to other logically related parts. It's also that the method could be non-static at other point of the hierarchy (i.e. in a subclass or superclass) and thus participate in polymorphism (type based dispatching). So if you put that function outside the class you will be precluding subclasses from effectively overriding it. Now, say you realize you don't need self in function C.f of class C, you have three two options:
Put it outside the class. But we just decided against this.
Do nothing new: while unused, still keep the self parameter.
Declare you are not using the self parameter, while still letting other C methods to call f as self.f, which is required if you wish to keep open the possibility of further overrides of f that do depend on some instance state.
Option 2 demands less conceptual baggage (you already have to know about self and methods-as-bound-functions, because it's the more general case). But you still may prefer to be explicit about self not being using (and the interpreter could even reward you with some optimization, not having to partially apply a function to self). In that case, you pick option 3 and add #staticmethod on top of your function.
Use #staticmethod for methods that don't need to operate on a specific object, but that you still want located in the scope of the class (as opposed to module scope).
Your example in test2.static_add_one wastes its time passing an unused self parameter, but otherwise works the same as test1.static_add_one. Note that this extraneous parameter can't be optimized away.
One example I can think of is in a Django project I have, where a model class represents a database table, and an object of that class represents a record. There are some functions used by the class that are stand-alone and do not need an object to operate on, for example a function that converts a title into a "slug", which is a representation of the title that follows the character set limits imposed by URL syntax. The function that converts a title to a slug is declared as a staticmethod precisely to strongly associate it with the class that uses it.
Concretely, I have a user-defined class of type
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, bar):
self.bar = bar
def bind(self):
val = self.bar
do_something(val)
I need to:
1) be able to call on the class (not an instance of the class) to recover all the self.xxx attributes defined within the class.
For an instance of a class, this can be done by doing a f = Foo('') and then f.__dict__. Is there a way of doing it for a class, and not an instance? If yes, how? I would expect Foo.__dict__ to return {'bar': None} but it doesn't work this way.
2) be able to access all the self.xxx parameters called from a particular function of a class. For instance I would like to do Foo.bind.__selfparams__ and recieve in return ['bar']. Is there a way of doing this?
This is something that is quite hard to do in a dynamic language, assuming I understand correctly what you're trying to do. Essentially this means going over all the instances in existence for the class and then collecting all the set attributes on those instances. While not infeasible, I would question the practicality of such approach both from a design as well as performance points of view.
More specifically, you're talking of "all the self.xxx attributes defined within the class"—but these things are not defined at all, not at least in a single place—they more like "evolve" as more and more instances of the class are brought to life. Now, I'm not saying all your instances are setting different attributes, but they might, and in order to have a reliable generic solution, you'd literally have to keep track of anything the instances might have done to themselves. So unless you have a static analysis approach in mind, I don't see a clean and efficient way of achieving it (and actually even static analysis is of no help generally speaking in a dynamic language).
A trivial example to prove my point:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self):
# statically analysable
self.bla = 3
# still, but more difficult
if SOME_CONSTANT > 123:
self.x = 123
else:
self.y = 321
def do_something(self):
import random
setattr(self, "attr%s" % random.randint(1, 100), "hello, world of dynamic languages!")
foo = Foo()
foo2 = Foo()
# only `bla`, `x`, and `y` attrs in existence so far
foo2.do_something()
# now there's an attribute with a random name out there
# in order to detect it, we'd have to get all instances of Foo existence at the moment, and individually inspect every attribute on them.
And, even if you were to iterate all instances in existence, you'd only be getting a snapshot of what you're interested, not all possible attributes.
This is not possible. The class doesn't have those attributes, just functions that set them. Ergo, there is nothing to retrieve and this is impossible.
This is only possible with deep AST inspection. Foo.bar.func_code would normally have the attributes you want under co_freevars but you're looking up the attributes on self, so they are not free variables. You would have to decompile the bytecode from func_code.co_code to AST and then walk said AST.
This is a bad idea. Whatever you're doing, find a different way of doing it.
To do this, you need some way to find all the instances of your class. One way to do this is just to have the class itself keep track of its instances. Unfortunately, keeping a reference to every instance in the class means that those instances can never be garbage-collected. Fortunately, Python has weakref, which will keep a reference to an object but does not count as a reference to Python's memory management, so the instances can be garbage-collected as per usual.
A good place to update the list of instances is in your __init__() method. You could also do it in __new__() if you find the separation of concerns a little cleaner.
import weakref
class Foo(object):
_instances = []
def __init__(self, value):
self.value = value
cls = type(self)
type(self)._instances.append(weakref.ref(self,
type(self)._instances.remove))
#classmethod
def iterinstances(cls):
"Returns an iterator over all instances of the class."
return (ref() for ref in cls._instances)
#classmethod
def iterattrs(cls, attr, default=None):
"Returns an iterator over a named attribute of all instances of the class."
return (getattr(ref(), attr, default) for ref in cls._instances)
Now you can do this:
f1, f2, f3 = Foo(1), Foo(2), Foo(3)
for v in Foo.iterattrs("value"):
print v, # prints 1 2 3
I am, for the record, with those who think this is generally a bad idea and/or not really what you want. In particular, instances may live longer than you expect depending on where you pass them and what that code does with them, so you may not always have the instances you think you have. (Some of this may even happen implicitly.) It is generally better to be explicit about this: rather than having the various instances of your class be stored in random variables all over your code (and libraries), have their primary repository be a list or other container, and access them from there. Then you can easily iterate over them and get whatever attributes you want. However, there may be use cases for something like this and it's possible to code it up, so I did.
Say I have a class, which has a number of subclasses.
I can instantiate the class. I can then set its __class__ attribute to one of the subclasses. I have effectively changed the class type to the type of its subclass, on a live object. I can call methods on it which invoke the subclass's version of those methods.
So, how dangerous is doing this? It seems weird, but is it wrong to do such a thing? Despite the ability to change type at run-time, is this a feature of the language that should completely be avoided? Why or why not?
(Depending on responses, I'll post a more-specific question about what I would like to do, and if there are better alternatives).
Here's a list of things I can think of that make this dangerous, in rough order from worst to least bad:
It's likely to be confusing to someone reading or debugging your code.
You won't have gotten the right __init__ method, so you probably won't have all of the instance variables initialized properly (or even at all).
The differences between 2.x and 3.x are significant enough that it may be painful to port.
There are some edge cases with classmethods, hand-coded descriptors, hooks to the method resolution order, etc., and they're different between classic and new-style classes (and, again, between 2.x and 3.x).
If you use __slots__, all of the classes must have identical slots. (And if you have the compatible but different slots, it may appear to work at first but do horrible things…)
Special method definitions in new-style classes may not change. (In fact, this will work in practice with all current Python implementations, but it's not documented to work, so…)
If you use __new__, things will not work the way you naively expected.
If the classes have different metaclasses, things will get even more confusing.
Meanwhile, in many cases where you'd think this is necessary, there are better options:
Use a factory to create an instance of the appropriate class dynamically, instead of creating a base instance and then munging it into a derived one.
Use __new__ or other mechanisms to hook the construction.
Redesign things so you have a single class with some data-driven behavior, instead of abusing inheritance.
As a very most common specific case of the last one, just put all of the "variable methods" into classes whose instances are kept as a data member of the "parent", rather than into subclasses. Instead of changing self.__class__ = OtherSubclass, just do self.member = OtherSubclass(self). If you really need methods to magically change, automatic forwarding (e.g., via __getattr__) is a much more common and pythonic idiom than changing classes on the fly.
Assigning the __class__ attribute is useful if you have a long time running application and you need to replace an old version of some object by a newer version of the same class without loss of data, e.g. after some reload(mymodule) and without reload of unchanged modules. Other example is if you implement persistency - something similar to pickle.load.
All other usage is discouraged, especially if you can write the complete code before starting the application.
On arbitrary classes, this is extremely unlikely to work, and is very fragile even if it does. It's basically the same thing as pulling the underlying function objects out of the methods of one class, and calling them on objects which are not instances of the original class. Whether or not that will work depends on internal implementation details, and is a form of very tight coupling.
That said, changing the __class__ of objects amongst a set of classes that were particularly designed to be used this way could be perfectly fine. I've been aware that you can do this for a long time, but I've never yet found a use for this technique where a better solution didn't spring to mind at the same time. So if you think you have a use case, go for it. Just be clear in your comments/documentation what is going on. In particular it means that the implementation of all the classes involved have to respect all of their invariants/assumptions/etc, rather than being able to consider each class in isolation, so you'd want to make sure that anyone who works on any of the code involved is aware of this!
Well, not discounting the problems cautioned about at the start. But it can be useful in certain cases.
First of all, the reason I am looking this post up is because I did just this and __slots__ doesn't like it. (yes, my code is a valid use case for slots, this is pure memory optimization) and I was trying to get around a slots issue.
I first saw this in Alex Martelli's Python Cookbook (1st ed). In the 3rd ed, it's recipe 8.19 "Implementing Stateful Objects or State Machine Problems". A fairly knowledgeable source, Python-wise.
Suppose you have an ActiveEnemy object that has different behavior from an InactiveEnemy and you need to switch back and forth quickly between them. Maybe even a DeadEnemy.
If InactiveEnemy was a subclass or a sibling, you could switch class attributes. More exactly, the exact ancestry matters less than the methods and attributes being consistent to code calling it. Think Java interface or, as several people have mentioned, your classes need to be designed with this use in mind.
Now, you still have to manage state transition rules and all sorts of other things. And, yes, if your client code is not expecting this behavior and your instances switch behavior, things will hit the fan.
But I've used this quite successfully on Python 2.x and never had any unusual problems with it. Best done with a common parent and small behavioral differences on subclasses with the same method signatures.
No problems, until my __slots__ issue that's blocking it just now. But slots are a pain in the neck in general.
I would not do this to patch live code. I would also privilege using a factory method to create instances.
But to manage very specific conditions known in advance? Like a state machine that the clients are expected to understand thoroughly? Then it is pretty darn close to magic, with all the risk that comes with it. It's quite elegant.
Python 3 concerns? Test it to see if it works but the Cookbook uses Python 3 print(x) syntax in its example, FWIW.
The other answers have done a good job of discussing the question of why just changing __class__ is likely not an optimal decision.
Below is one example of a way to avoid changing __class__ after instance creation, using __new__. I'm not recommending it, just showing how it could be done, for the sake of completeness. However it is probably best to do this using a boring old factory rather than shoe-horning inheritance into a job for which it was not intended.
class ChildDispatcher:
_subclasses = dict()
def __new__(cls, *args, dispatch_arg, **kwargs):
# dispatch to a registered child class
subcls = cls.getsubcls(dispatch_arg)
return super(ChildDispatcher, subcls).__new__(subcls)
def __init_subclass__(subcls, **kwargs):
super(ChildDispatcher, subcls).__init_subclass__(**kwargs)
# add __new__ contructor to child class based on default first dispatch argument
def __new__(cls, *args, dispatch_arg = subcls.__qualname__, **kwargs):
return super(ChildDispatcher,cls).__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
subcls.__new__ = __new__
ChildDispatcher.register_subclass(subcls)
#classmethod
def getsubcls(cls, key):
name = cls.__qualname__
if cls is not ChildDispatcher:
raise AttributeError(f"type object {name!r} has no attribute 'getsubcls'")
try:
return ChildDispatcher._subclasses[key]
except KeyError:
raise KeyError(f"No child class key {key!r} in the "
f"{cls.__qualname__} subclasses registry")
#classmethod
def register_subclass(cls, subcls):
name = subcls.__qualname__
if cls is not ChildDispatcher:
raise AttributeError(f"type object {name!r} has no attribute "
f"'register_subclass'")
if name not in ChildDispatcher._subclasses:
ChildDispatcher._subclasses[name] = subcls
else:
raise KeyError(f"{name} subclass already exists")
class Child(ChildDispatcher): pass
c1 = ChildDispatcher(dispatch_arg = "Child")
assert isinstance(c1, Child)
c2 = Child()
assert isinstance(c2, Child)
How "dangerous" it is depends primarily on what the subclass would have done when initializing the object. It's entirely possible that it would not be properly initialized, having only run the base class's __init__(), and something would fail later because of, say, an uninitialized instance attribute.
Even without that, it seems like bad practice for most use cases. Easier to just instantiate the desired class in the first place.
Here's an example of one way you could do the same thing without changing __class__. Quoting #unutbu in the comments to the question:
Suppose you were modeling cellular automata. Suppose each cell could be in one of say 5 Stages. You could define 5 classes Stage1, Stage2, etc. Suppose each Stage class has multiple methods.
class Stage1(object):
…
class Stage2(object):
…
…
class Cell(object):
def __init__(self):
self.current_stage = Stage1()
def goToStage2(self):
self.current_stage = Stage2()
def __getattr__(self, attr):
return getattr(self.current_stage, attr)
If you allow changing __class__ you could instantly give a cell all the methods of a new stage (same names, but different behavior).
Same for changing current_stage, but this is a perfectly normal and pythonic thing to do, that won't confuse anyone.
Plus, it allows you to not change certain special methods you don't want changed, just by overriding them in Cell.
Plus, it works for data members, class methods, static methods, etc., in ways every intermediate Python programmer already understands.
If you refuse to change __class__, then you might have to include a stage attribute, and use a lot of if statements, or reassign a lot of attributes pointing to different stage's functions
Yes, I've used a stage attribute, but that's not a downside—it's the obvious visible way to keep track of what the current stage is, better for debugging and for readability.
And there's not a single if statement or any attribute reassignment except for the stage attribute.
And this is just one of multiple different ways of doing this without changing __class__.
In the comments I proposed modeling cellular automata as a possible use case for dynamic __class__s. Let's try to flesh out the idea a bit:
Using dynamic __class__:
class Stage(object):
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x = x
self.y = y
class Stage1(Stage):
def step(self):
if ...:
self.__class__ = Stage2
class Stage2(Stage):
def step(self):
if ...:
self.__class__ = Stage3
cells = [Stage1(x,y) for x in range(rows) for y in range(cols)]
def step(cells):
for cell in cells:
cell.step()
yield cells
For lack of a better term, I'm going to call this
The traditional way: (mainly abarnert's code)
class Stage1(object):
def step(self, cell):
...
if ...:
cell.goToStage2()
class Stage2(object):
def step(self, cell):
...
if ...:
cell.goToStage3()
class Cell(object):
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x = x
self.y = y
self.current_stage = Stage1()
def goToStage2(self):
self.current_stage = Stage2()
def __getattr__(self, attr):
return getattr(self.current_stage, attr)
cells = [Cell(x,y) for x in range(rows) for y in range(cols)]
def step(cells):
for cell in cells:
cell.step(cell)
yield cells
Comparison:
The traditional way creates a list of Cell instances each with a
current stage attribute.
The dynamic __class__ way creates a list of instances which are
subclasses of Stage. There is no need for a current stage
attribute since __class__ already serves this purpose.
The traditional way uses goToStage2, goToStage3, ... methods to
switch stages.
The dynamic __class__ way requires no such methods. You just
reassign __class__.
The traditional way uses the special method __getattr__ to delegate
some method calls to the appropriate stage instance held in the
self.current_stage attribute.
The dynamic __class__ way does not require any such delegation. The
instances in cells are already the objects you want.
The traditional way needs to pass the cell as an argument to
Stage.step. This is so cell.goToStageN can be called.
The dynamic __class__ way does not need to pass anything. The
object we are dealing with has everything we need.
Conclusion:
Both ways can be made to work. To the extent that I can envision how these two implementations would pan-out, it seems to me the dynamic __class__ implementation will be
simpler (no Cell class),
more elegant (no ugly goToStage2 methods, no brain-teasers like why
you need to write cell.step(cell) instead of cell.step()),
and easier to understand (no __getattr__, no additional level of
indirection)