I want to be able to dynamically override all calls sent to methods on the parent class. So far I've only been able to do it for methods not defined in a parent class.
I.e. Given a parent class:
class A:
def foo(self):
print("foo")
def bar(self):
print("bar")
I want to create a Spy class that inherits from A will print "This is a spy" before calling any method on A, including foo.
class Spy(A):
pass # What do I do here?
s = Spy()
>>> s.foo()
This is a spy
foo
Current implementation
My current implementation of Spy is this:
class Spy(A):
def __getattr__(self, method):
print("This is a spy")
return getattr(super(A, self), method)
However, this only works for methods not defined in the parent class:
>>> s.baz()
This is a spy
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 4, in __getattr__
AttributeError: 'super' object has no attribute 'baz'
When I call a method that exists already, it doesn't work:
>>> s.foo()
foo
>>> s.bar()
bar
The following code snippet should do what you want. I have excluded methods starting with __ because these can be problematic (for example, overriding __class__ with a function will cause an error).
class A:
def foo(self):
print("foo")
def bar(self, x):
print(x)
class Spy(A):
def functionwrapper(self, functionname):
originalfunc = getattr(super(), functionname)
def wrap(*args, **kwargs):
print("This is a spy: ", end="")
originalfunc(*args, **kwargs)
return wrap
def __init__(self):
for methodname in [method for method in dir(A) if (method[0:2] != "__")]:
setattr(self, methodname, self.functionwrapper(methodname))
s = Spy()
s.foo()
s.bar("variable")
Output
This is a spy: foo
This is a spy: variable
When I call a method that exists already, it doesn't work
That's because __getattr__ is only gonna get called when the default attribute access fails. So if the parent has that method, it gets found and your __getattr__ won't get called.
You need to intercept the __getattribute__ instead:
from types import MethodType
from inspect import isfunction
class A:
def foo(self):
print("foo")
class Spy(A):
def bar(self):
print("barrrrrrrrr")
def __getattribute__(self, name):
# check it instance's namespace
instance_dict = object.__getattribute__(self, "__dict__")
if name in instance_dict:
return instance_dict[name]
# check its class' namespace
if name in type(self).__dict__:
return object.__getattribute__(self, name)
# check parents
for cls in type(self).mro()[1:]:
if name in cls.__dict__:
member = cls.__dict__[name]
if isfunction(member):
# your code here
print("This is a spy")
return MethodType(cls.__dict__[name], self)
return member
raise AttributeError(f"{type(self)} object has no attribute '{name}'")
s = Spy()
s.foo()
s.bar()
print("-----------------------------------")
s.boo()
output:
This is a spy
foo
barrrrrrrrr
-----------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "...", line 32, in <module>
s.boo()
File "...", line 25, in __getattribute__
raise AttributeError(f"{type(self)} object has no attribute '{name}'")
AttributeError: <class '__main__.Spy'> object has no attribute 'boo'
So this is one way of doing it and I agree that it might be overkill.
You do that in three steps:
Check to see it is in the instance's namespace: like the data attributes you usually set in __init__.
Check to see it is in its class' namespace: You don't want yout print statement here because it's not sent to the parent.
Check its parents
test.py:
import functools
import inspect
TXT = "This is a spy"
def deco(func):
#functools.wraps(func)
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
print(TXT)
return func(*args, **kwargs)
return wrapper
class A:
def foo(self):
print("foo")
def bar(self):
print("bar")
class Spy(A):
def __init__(self):
self.patch()
#classmethod
def patch(cls):
superclass = cls.__bases__[0]
for name, value in inspect.getmembers(superclass, inspect.isfunction):
setattr(cls, name, deco(value))
def main():
s = Spy()
s.foo()
s.bar()
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
Test:
$ python test.py
This is a spy
foo
This is a spy
bar
I have a class with two class methods (using the classmethod() function) for getting and setting what is essentially a static variable. I tried to use the property() function with these, but it results in an error. I was able to reproduce the error with the following in the interpreter:
class Foo(object):
_var = 5
#classmethod
def getvar(cls):
return cls._var
#classmethod
def setvar(cls, value):
cls._var = value
var = property(getvar, setvar)
I can demonstrate the class methods, but they don't work as properties:
>>> f = Foo()
>>> f.getvar()
5
>>> f.setvar(4)
>>> f.getvar()
4
>>> f.var
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
TypeError: 'classmethod' object is not callable
>>> f.var=5
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
TypeError: 'classmethod' object is not callable
Is it possible to use the property() function with #classmethod decorated functions?
3.8 < Python < 3.11
Can use both decorators together. See this answer.
Python < 3.9
A property is created on a class but affects an instance. So if you want a classmethod property, create the property on the metaclass.
>>> class foo(object):
... _var = 5
... class __metaclass__(type): # Python 2 syntax for metaclasses
... pass
... #classmethod
... def getvar(cls):
... return cls._var
... #classmethod
... def setvar(cls, value):
... cls._var = value
...
>>> foo.__metaclass__.var = property(foo.getvar.im_func, foo.setvar.im_func)
>>> foo.var
5
>>> foo.var = 3
>>> foo.var
3
But since you're using a metaclass anyway, it will read better if you just move the classmethods in there.
>>> class foo(object):
... _var = 5
... class __metaclass__(type): # Python 2 syntax for metaclasses
... #property
... def var(cls):
... return cls._var
... #var.setter
... def var(cls, value):
... cls._var = value
...
>>> foo.var
5
>>> foo.var = 3
>>> foo.var
3
or, using Python 3's metaclass=... syntax, and the metaclass defined outside of the foo class body, and the metaclass responsible for setting the initial value of _var:
>>> class foo_meta(type):
... def __init__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
... cls._var = 5
... #property
... def var(cls):
... return cls._var
... #var.setter
... def var(cls, value):
... cls._var = value
...
>>> class foo(metaclass=foo_meta):
... pass
...
>>> foo.var
5
>>> foo.var = 3
>>> foo.var
3
In Python 3.9 You could use them together, but (as noted in #xgt's comment) it was deprecated in Python 3.11, so it is not recommended to use it.
Check the version remarks here:
https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/functions.html#classmethod
However, it used to work like so:
class G:
#classmethod
#property
def __doc__(cls):
return f'A doc for {cls.__name__!r}'
Order matters - due to how the descriptors interact, #classmethod has to be on top.
I hope this dead-simple read-only #classproperty decorator would help somebody looking for classproperties.
class classproperty(property):
def __get__(self, owner_self, owner_cls):
return self.fget(owner_cls)
class C(object):
#classproperty
def x(cls):
return 1
assert C.x == 1
assert C().x == 1
Reading the Python 2.2 release notes, I find the following.
The get method [of a property] won't be called when
the property is accessed as a class
attribute (C.x) instead of as an
instance attribute (C().x). If you
want to override the __get__ operation
for properties when used as a class
attribute, you can subclass property -
it is a new-style type itself - to
extend its __get__ method, or you can
define a descriptor type from scratch
by creating a new-style class that
defines __get__, __set__ and
__delete__ methods.
NOTE: The below method doesn't actually work for setters, only getters.
Therefore, I believe the prescribed solution is to create a ClassProperty as a subclass of property.
class ClassProperty(property):
def __get__(self, cls, owner):
return self.fget.__get__(None, owner)()
class foo(object):
_var=5
def getvar(cls):
return cls._var
getvar=classmethod(getvar)
def setvar(cls,value):
cls._var=value
setvar=classmethod(setvar)
var=ClassProperty(getvar,setvar)
assert foo.getvar() == 5
foo.setvar(4)
assert foo.getvar() == 4
assert foo.var == 4
foo.var = 3
assert foo.var == 3
However, the setters don't actually work:
foo.var = 4
assert foo.var == foo._var # raises AssertionError
foo._var is unchanged, you've simply overwritten the property with a new value.
You can also use ClassProperty as a decorator:
class foo(object):
_var = 5
#ClassProperty
#classmethod
def var(cls):
return cls._var
#var.setter
#classmethod
def var(cls, value):
cls._var = value
assert foo.var == 5
Is it possible to use the property() function with classmethod decorated functions?
No.
However, a classmethod is simply a bound method (a partial function) on a class accessible from instances of that class.
Since the instance is a function of the class and you can derive the class from the instance, you can can get whatever desired behavior you might want from a class-property with property:
class Example(object):
_class_property = None
#property
def class_property(self):
return self._class_property
#class_property.setter
def class_property(self, value):
type(self)._class_property = value
#class_property.deleter
def class_property(self):
del type(self)._class_property
This code can be used to test - it should pass without raising any errors:
ex1 = Example()
ex2 = Example()
ex1.class_property = None
ex2.class_property = 'Example'
assert ex1.class_property is ex2.class_property
del ex2.class_property
assert not hasattr(ex1, 'class_property')
And note that we didn't need metaclasses at all - and you don't directly access a metaclass through its classes' instances anyways.
writing a #classproperty decorator
You can actually create a classproperty decorator in just a few lines of code by subclassing property (it's implemented in C, but you can see equivalent Python here):
class classproperty(property):
def __get__(self, obj, objtype=None):
return super(classproperty, self).__get__(objtype)
def __set__(self, obj, value):
super(classproperty, self).__set__(type(obj), value)
def __delete__(self, obj):
super(classproperty, self).__delete__(type(obj))
Then treat the decorator as if it were a classmethod combined with property:
class Foo(object):
_bar = 5
#classproperty
def bar(cls):
"""this is the bar attribute - each subclass of Foo gets its own.
Lookups should follow the method resolution order.
"""
return cls._bar
#bar.setter
def bar(cls, value):
cls._bar = value
#bar.deleter
def bar(cls):
del cls._bar
And this code should work without errors:
def main():
f = Foo()
print(f.bar)
f.bar = 4
print(f.bar)
del f.bar
try:
f.bar
except AttributeError:
pass
else:
raise RuntimeError('f.bar must have worked - inconceivable!')
help(f) # includes the Foo.bar help.
f.bar = 5
class Bar(Foo):
"a subclass of Foo, nothing more"
help(Bar) # includes the Foo.bar help!
b = Bar()
b.bar = 'baz'
print(b.bar) # prints baz
del b.bar
print(b.bar) # prints 5 - looked up from Foo!
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
But I'm not sure how well-advised this would be. An old mailing list article suggests it shouldn't work.
Getting the property to work on the class:
The downside of the above is that the "class property" isn't accessible from the class, because it would simply overwrite the data descriptor from the class __dict__.
However, we can override this with a property defined in the metaclass __dict__. For example:
class MetaWithFooClassProperty(type):
#property
def foo(cls):
"""The foo property is a function of the class -
in this case, the trivial case of the identity function.
"""
return cls
And then a class instance of the metaclass could have a property that accesses the class's property using the principle already demonstrated in the prior sections:
class FooClassProperty(metaclass=MetaWithFooClassProperty):
#property
def foo(self):
"""access the class's property"""
return type(self).foo
And now we see both the instance
>>> FooClassProperty().foo
<class '__main__.FooClassProperty'>
and the class
>>> FooClassProperty.foo
<class '__main__.FooClassProperty'>
have access to the class property.
Python 3!
See #Amit Portnoy's answer for an even cleaner method in python >= 3.9
Old question, lots of views, sorely in need of a one-true Python 3 way.
Luckily, it's easy with the metaclass kwarg:
class FooProperties(type):
#property
def var(cls):
return cls._var
class Foo(object, metaclass=FooProperties):
_var = 'FOO!'
Then, >>> Foo.var
'FOO!'
There is no reasonable way to make this "class property" system to work in Python.
Here is one unreasonable way to make it work. You can certainly make it more seamless with increasing amounts of metaclass magic.
class ClassProperty(object):
def __init__(self, getter, setter):
self.getter = getter
self.setter = setter
def __get__(self, cls, owner):
return getattr(cls, self.getter)()
def __set__(self, cls, value):
getattr(cls, self.setter)(value)
class MetaFoo(type):
var = ClassProperty('getvar', 'setvar')
class Foo(object):
__metaclass__ = MetaFoo
_var = 5
#classmethod
def getvar(cls):
print "Getting var =", cls._var
return cls._var
#classmethod
def setvar(cls, value):
print "Setting var =", value
cls._var = value
x = Foo.var
print "Foo.var = ", x
Foo.var = 42
x = Foo.var
print "Foo.var = ", x
The knot of the issue is that properties are what Python calls "descriptors". There is no short and easy way to explain how this sort of metaprogramming works, so I must point you to the descriptor howto.
You only ever need to understand this sort of things if you are implementing a fairly advanced framework. Like a transparent object persistence or RPC system, or a kind of domain-specific language.
However, in a comment to a previous answer, you say that you
need to modify an attribute that in such a way that is seen by all instances of a class, and in the scope from which these class methods are called does not have references to all instances of the class.
It seems to me, what you really want is an Observer design pattern.
Setting it only on the meta class doesn't help if you want to access the class property via an instantiated object, in this case you need to install a normal property on the object as well (which dispatches to the class property). I think the following is a bit more clear:
#!/usr/bin/python
class classproperty(property):
def __get__(self, obj, type_):
return self.fget.__get__(None, type_)()
def __set__(self, obj, value):
cls = type(obj)
return self.fset.__get__(None, cls)(value)
class A (object):
_foo = 1
#classproperty
#classmethod
def foo(cls):
return cls._foo
#foo.setter
#classmethod
def foo(cls, value):
cls.foo = value
a = A()
print a.foo
b = A()
print b.foo
b.foo = 5
print a.foo
A.foo = 10
print b.foo
print A.foo
Half a solution, __set__ on the class does not work, still. The solution is a custom property class implementing both a property and a staticmethod
class ClassProperty(object):
def __init__(self, fget, fset):
self.fget = fget
self.fset = fset
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
return self.fget()
def __set__(self, instance, value):
self.fset(value)
class Foo(object):
_bar = 1
def get_bar():
print 'getting'
return Foo._bar
def set_bar(value):
print 'setting'
Foo._bar = value
bar = ClassProperty(get_bar, set_bar)
f = Foo()
#__get__ works
f.bar
Foo.bar
f.bar = 2
Foo.bar = 3 #__set__ does not
Because I need to modify an attribute that in such a way that is seen by all instances of a class, and in the scope from which these class methods are called does not have references to all instances of the class.
Do you have access to at least one instance of the class? I can think of a way to do it then:
class MyClass (object):
__var = None
def _set_var (self, value):
type (self).__var = value
def _get_var (self):
return self.__var
var = property (_get_var, _set_var)
a = MyClass ()
b = MyClass ()
a.var = "foo"
print b.var
Give this a try, it gets the job done without having to change/add a lot of existing code.
>>> class foo(object):
... _var = 5
... def getvar(cls):
... return cls._var
... getvar = classmethod(getvar)
... def setvar(cls, value):
... cls._var = value
... setvar = classmethod(setvar)
... var = property(lambda self: self.getvar(), lambda self, val: self.setvar(val))
...
>>> f = foo()
>>> f.var
5
>>> f.var = 3
>>> f.var
3
The property function needs two callable arguments. give them lambda wrappers (which it passes the instance as its first argument) and all is well.
Here's a solution which should work for both access via the class and access via an instance which uses a metaclass.
In [1]: class ClassPropertyMeta(type):
...: #property
...: def prop(cls):
...: return cls._prop
...: def __new__(cls, name, parents, dct):
...: # This makes overriding __getattr__ and __setattr__ in the class impossible, but should be fixable
...: dct['__getattr__'] = classmethod(lambda cls, attr: getattr(cls, attr))
...: dct['__setattr__'] = classmethod(lambda cls, attr, val: setattr(cls, attr, val))
...: return super(ClassPropertyMeta, cls).__new__(cls, name, parents, dct)
...:
In [2]: class ClassProperty(object):
...: __metaclass__ = ClassPropertyMeta
...: _prop = 42
...: def __getattr__(self, attr):
...: raise Exception('Never gets called')
...:
In [3]: ClassProperty.prop
Out[3]: 42
In [4]: ClassProperty.prop = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-4-e2e8b423818a> in <module>()
----> 1 ClassProperty.prop = 1
AttributeError: can't set attribute
In [5]: cp = ClassProperty()
In [6]: cp.prop
Out[6]: 42
In [7]: cp.prop = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-7-e8284a3ee950> in <module>()
----> 1 cp.prop = 1
<ipython-input-1-16b7c320d521> in <lambda>(cls, attr, val)
6 # This makes overriding __getattr__ and __setattr__ in the class impossible, but should be fixable
7 dct['__getattr__'] = classmethod(lambda cls, attr: getattr(cls, attr))
----> 8 dct['__setattr__'] = classmethod(lambda cls, attr, val: setattr(cls, attr, val))
9 return super(ClassPropertyMeta, cls).__new__(cls, name, parents, dct)
AttributeError: can't set attribute
This also works with a setter defined in the metaclass.
I found one clean solution to this problem. It's a package called classutilities (pip install classutilities), see the documentation here on PyPi.
Consider example:
import classutilities
class SomeClass(classutilities.ClassPropertiesMixin):
_some_variable = 8 # Some encapsulated class variable
#classutilities.classproperty
def some_variable(cls): # class property getter
return cls._some_variable
#some_variable.setter
def some_variable(cls, value): # class property setter
cls._some_variable = value
You can use it on both class level and instance level:
# Getter on class level:
value = SomeClass.some_variable
print(value) # >>> 8
# Getter on instance level
inst = SomeClass()
value = inst.some_variable
print(value) # >>> 8
# Setter on class level:
new_value = 9
SomeClass.some_variable = new_value
print(SomeClass.some_variable) # >>> 9
print(SomeClass._some_variable) # >>> 9
# Setter on instance level
inst = SomeClass()
inst.some_variable = new_value
print(SomeClass.some_variable) # >>> 9
print(SomeClass._some_variable) # >>> 9
print(inst.some_variable) # >>> 9
print(inst._some_variable) # >>> 9
As you can see, it works correctly under all circumstances.
Based on https://stackoverflow.com/a/1800999/2290820
class MetaProperty(type):
def __init__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
super()
#property
def praparty(cls):
return cls._var
#praparty.setter
def praparty(cls, val):
cls._var = val
class A(metaclass=MetaProperty):
_var = 5
print(A.praparty)
A.praparty = 6
print(A.praparty)
For a functional approach pre Python 3.9 you can use this:
def classproperty(fget):
return type(
'classproperty',
(),
{'__get__': lambda self, _, cls: fget(cls), '__module__': None}
)()
class Item:
a = 47
#classproperty
def x(cls):
return cls.a
Item.x
After searching different places, I found a method to define a classproperty
valid with Python 2 and 3.
from future.utils import with_metaclass
class BuilderMetaClass(type):
#property
def load_namespaces(self):
return (self.__sourcepath__)
class BuilderMixin(with_metaclass(BuilderMetaClass, object)):
__sourcepath__ = 'sp'
print(BuilderMixin.load_namespaces)
Hope this can help somebody :)
A code completion friendly solution for Python < 3.9
from typing import (
Callable,
Generic,
TypeVar,
)
T = TypeVar('T')
class classproperty(Generic[T]):
"""Converts a method to a class property.
"""
def __init__(self, f: Callable[..., T]):
self.fget = f
def __get__(self, instance, owner) -> T:
return self.fget(owner)
Here is my solution that also caches the class property
class class_property(object):
# this caches the result of the function call for fn with cls input
# use this as a decorator on function methods that you want converted
# into cached properties
def __init__(self, fn):
self._fn_name = fn.__name__
if not isinstance(fn, (classmethod, staticmethod)):
fn = classmethod(fn)
self._fn = fn
def __get__(self, obj, cls=None):
if cls is None:
cls = type(obj)
if (
self._fn_name in vars(cls) and
type(vars(cls)[self._fn_name]).__name__ != "class_property"
):
return vars(cls)[self._fn_name]
else:
value = self._fn.__get__(obj, cls)()
setattr(cls, self._fn_name, value)
return value
Here's my suggestion. Don't use class methods.
Seriously.
What's the reason for using class methods in this case? Why not have an ordinary object of an ordinary class?
If you simply want to change the value, a property isn't really very helpful is it? Just set the attribute value and be done with it.
A property should only be used if there's something to conceal -- something that might change in a future implementation.
Maybe your example is way stripped down, and there is some hellish calculation you've left off. But it doesn't look like the property adds significant value.
The Java-influenced "privacy" techniques (in Python, attribute names that begin with _) aren't really very helpful. Private from whom? The point of private is a little nebulous when you have the source (as you do in Python.)
The Java-influenced EJB-style getters and setters (often done as properties in Python) are there to facilitate Java's primitive introspection as well as to pass muster with the static language compiler. All those getters and setters aren't as helpful in Python.
Running this code:
import weakref
class A(object):
_instances = []
def __init__(self):
self._instances.append(weakref.ref(self))
#property
#classmethod
def instances(cls):
for inst_ref in cls._instances:
inst = inst_ref()
if inst is not None:
yield inst
foo = A()
bar = A()
for inst in A.instances:
print inst
I get this error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "test.py", line 18, in <module>
for inst in A.instances:
TypeError: 'property' object is not iterable
I can't figure out how having a class method behave like a property (no parentheses).
Can anyone explain me why I get this error?
Can anyone explain me how I could have a class method behaving like a property?
Here is one way to use descriptors with a class:
import weakref
class classproperty(object):
def __init__(self, fget):
self.fget = fget
def __get__(self, owner_self, owner_cls):
return self.fget(owner_cls)
class A(object):
_instances = []
def __init__(self):
self._instances.append(weakref.ref(self))
#classproperty
def instances(cls):
for inst_ref in cls._instances:
inst = inst_ref()
if inst is not None:
yield inst
foo = A()
bar = A()
for inst in A.instances:
print inst
References:
https://docs.python.org/2/reference/datamodel.html#invoking-descriptors
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13624858/8747
Properties always apply to instances, not classes.
The way to do this would be to define a metaclass that defines the property on its own instance method, since a class is an instance of its metaclass:
class AMeta(type):
def __init__(self,name,bases,dict):
self._instances = []
#property
def instances(self):
for inst_ref in self._instances:
inst = inst_ref()
if inst is not None:
yield inst
class A(object):
__metaclass__ = AMeta
def __init__(self):
self._instances.append(weakref.ref(self))
This now works as expected:
>>> foo=A()
>>> bar = A()
>>> for inst in A.instances:
... print inst
<__main__.A object at 0x1065d7290>
<__main__.A object at 0x1065d7990>
One solution would be, to use a WeakKeyDictionary, which is iterable, like you want:
import weakref
class A(object):
instances = weakref.WeakKeyDictionary()
def __init__(self):
self.instances[self] = True
foo = A()
bar = A()
for inst in A.instances:
print inst
What is wrong with the following code?
class A:
def A_M(self): pass
class B:
#staticmethod
def C(): super(B).A_M()
error (Python 2.7.3):
>>> a = A()
>>> a.B.C()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "..x.py", line 36, in C
def C(): super(B).A_M()
NameError: global name 'B' is not defined
Edit:
the solution was simple as this:
class A:
def A_M(self): pass
class B:
#staticmethod
def C(): A().A_M() #use of A() instead of supper, etc.
Important Note that there is an issue with this solution. If you change the name of super class (i.e. A) then you will have to update all uses inside itself as A :)).
class A(object):
def foo(self):
print('foo')
#staticmethod
def bar():
print('bar')
class B(object):
#staticmethod
def bar(obj):
# A.foo is not staticmethod, you can't use A.foo(),
# you need an instance.
# You also can't use super here to get A,
# because B is not subclass of A.
obj.foo()
A.foo(obj) # the same as obj.foo()
# A.bar is static, you can use it without an object.
A.bar()
class B(A):
def foo(self):
# Again, B.foo shouldn't be a staticmethod, because A.foo isn't.
super(B, self).foo()
#staticmethod
def bar():
# You have to use super(type, type) if you don't have an instance.
super(B, B).bar()
a, b = A(), B()
a.B.bar(a)
b.foo()
B.bar()
See this for details on super(B, B).
You need to use a fully-qualified name. Also, in python 2.7, you need to use (object), else super(A.B) will give TypeError: must be type, not classobj
class A(object):
def A_M(self):
pass
class B(object):
#staticmethod
def C():
super(A.B).A_M()
Finally, super(A.B) is essentially object here. Did you mean for B to inherit from A? Or were you simply looking for A.A_M()?
A latecommer, to just encapsulate B in A the easy way is this:
class A:
def A_M(self):
return "hi"
class B:
#staticmethod
def C():
return A().A_M()
a = A()
print a.B().C()
Not sure this is what you need, but the question was still unsolved, so I guessed.