We Keep Coding

Python static method wrapper is unnecessary? [duplicate]

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.

Instance variables in methods outside the constructor (Python) -- why and how?

My questions concern instance variables that are initialized in methods outside the class constructor. This is for Python.
I'll first state what I understand:
Classes may define a constructor, and it may also define other methods.
Instance variables are generally defined/initialized within the constructor.
But instance variables can also be defined/initialized outside the constructor, e.g. in the other methods of the same class.
An example of (2) and (3) -- see self.meow and self.roar in the Cat class below:
class Cat():
def __init__(self):
self.meow = "Meow!"
def meow_bigger(self):
self.roar = "Roar!"
My questions:
Why is it best practice to initialize the instance variable within the constructor?
What general/specific mess could arise if instance variables are regularly initialized in methods other than the constructor? (E.g. Having read Mark Lutz's Tkinter guide in his Programming Python, which I thought was excellent, I noticed that the instance variable used to hold the PhotoImage objects/references were initialized in the further methods, not in the constructor. It seemed to work without issue there, but could that practice cause issues in the long run?)
In what scenarios would it be better to initialize instance variables in the other methods, rather than in the constructor?
To my knowledge, instance variables exist not when the class object is created, but after the class object is instantiated. Proceeding upon my code above, I demonstrate this:
>> c = Cat()
>> c.meow
'Meow!'
>> c.roar
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'Cat' object has no attribute 'roar'
>>> c.meow_bigger()
>>> c.roar
'Roar!'
As it were:
I cannot access the instance variable (c.roar) at first.
However, after I have called the instance method c.meow_bigger() once, I am suddenly able to access the instance variable c.roar.
Why is the above behaviour so?
Thank you for helping out with my understanding.

Why is it best practice to initialize the instance variable within the
constructor?
Clarity.
Because it makes it easy to see at a glance all of the attributes of the class. If you initialize the variables in multiple methods, it becomes difficult to understand the complete data structure without reading every line of code.
Initializing within the __init__ also makes documentation easier. With your example, you can't write "an instance of Cat has a roar attribute". Instead, you have to add a paragraph explaining that an instance of Cat might have a "roar" attribute, but only after calling the "meow_louder" method.
Clarity is king. One of the smartest programmers I ever met once told me "show me your data structures, and I can tell you how your code works without seeing any of your code". While that's a tiny bit hyperbolic, there's definitely a ring of truth to it. One of the biggest hurdles to learning a code base is understanding the data that it manipulates.
What general/specific mess could arise if instance variables are
regularly initialized in methods other than the constructor?
The most obvious one is that an object may not have an attribute available during all parts of the program, leading to having to add a lot of extra code to handle the case where the attribute is undefined.
In what scenarios would it be better to initialize instance variables
in the other methods, rather than in the constructor?
I don't think there are any.
Note: you don't necessarily have to initialize an attribute with it's final value. In your case it's acceptable to initialize roar to None. The mere fact that it has been initialized to something shows that it's a piece of data that the class maintains. It's fine if the value changes later.

Remember that class members in "pure" Python are just a dictionary. Members aren't added to an instance's dictionary until you run the function in which they are defined. Ideally this is the constructor, because that then guarantees that your members will all exist regardless of the order that your functions are called.
I believe your example above could be translated to:
class Cat():
def __init__(self):
self.__dict__['meow'] = "Meow!"
def meow_bigger(self):
self.__dict__['roar'] = "Roar!"
>>> c = Cat() # c.__dict__ = { 'meow': "Meow!" }
>>> c.meow_bigger() # c.__dict__ = { 'meow': "Meow!", 'roar': "Roar!" }

To initialize instance variables within the constructor, is - as you already pointed out - only recommended in python.
First of all, defining all instance variables within the constructor is a good way to document a class. Everybody, seeing the code, knows what kind of internal state an instance has.
Secondly, order matters. if one defines an instance variable V in a function A and there is another function B also accessing V, it is important to call A before B. Otherwise B will fail since V was never defined. Maybe, A has to be invoked before B, but then it should be ensured by an internal state, which would be an instance variable.
There are many more examples. Generally it is just a good idea to define everything in the __init__ method, and set it to None if it can not / should not be initialized at initialization.
Of course, one could use hasattr method to derive some information of the state. But, also one could check if some instance variable V is for example None, which can imply the same then.
So in my opinion, it is never a good idea to define an instance variable anywhere else as in the constructor.
Your examples state some basic properties of python. An object in Python is basically just a dictionary.
Lets use a dictionary: One can add functions and values to that dictionary and construct some kind of OOP. Using the class statement just brings everything into a clean syntax and provides extra stuff like magic methods.
In other languages all information about instance variables and functions are present before the object was initialized. Python does that at runtime. You can also add new methods to any object outside the class definition: Adding a Method to an Existing Object Instance

3.) But instance variables can also be defined/initialized outside the constructor, e.g. in the other methods of the same class.
I'd recommend providing a default state in initialization, just so its clear what the class should expect. In statically typed languages, you'd have to do this, and it's good practice in python.
Let's convey this by replacing the variable roar with a more meaningful variable like has_roared.
In this case, your meow_bigger() method now has a reason to set has_roar. You'd initialize it to false in __init__, as the cat has not roared yet upon instantiation.
class Cat():
def __init__(self):
self.meow = "Meow!"
self.has_roared = False
def meow_bigger(self):
print self.meow + "!!!"
self.has_roared = True
Now do you see why it often makes sense to initialize attributes with default values?
All that being said, why does python not enforce that we HAVE to define our variables in the __init__ method? Well, being a dynamic language, we can now do things like this.
>>> cat1 = Cat()
>>> cat2 = Cat()
>>> cat1.name = "steve"
>>> cat2.name = "sarah"
>>> print cat1.name
... "steve"
The name attribute was not defined in the __init__ method, but we're able to add it anyway. This is a more realistic use case of setting variables that aren't defaulted in __init__.

I try to provide a case where you would do so for:
3.) But instance variables can also be defined/initialized outside the constructor, e.g. in the other methods of the same class.
I agree it would be clear and organized to include instance field in the constructor, but sometimes you are inherit other class, which is created by some other people and has many instance fields and api.
But if you inherit it only for certain apis and you want to have your own instance field for your own apis, in this case, it is easier for you to just declare extra instance field in the method instead override the other's constructor without bothering to deep into the source code. This also support Adam Hughes's answer, because in this case, you will always have your defined instance because you will guarantee to call you own api first.
For instance, suppose you inherit a package's handler class for web development, you want to include a new instance field called user for handler, you would probability just declare it directly in the method--initialize without override the constructor, I saw it is more common to do so.
class BlogHandler(webapp2.RequestHandler):
def initialize(self, *a, **kw):
webapp2.RequestHandler.initialize(self, *a, **kw)
uid = self.read_cookie('user_id') #get user_id by read cookie in the browser
self.user = User.by_id(int(uid)) #run query in data base find the user and return user

These are very open questions.
Python is a very "free" language in the sense that it tries to never restrict you from doing anything, even if it looks silly. This is why you can do completely useless things such as replacing a class with a boolean (Yes you can).
The behaviour that you mention follows that same logic: if you wish to add an attribute to an object (or to a function - yes you can, too) dynamically, anywhere, not necessarily in the constructor, well... you can.
But it is not because you can that you should. The main reason for initializing attributes in the constructor is readability, which is a prerequisite for maintenance. As Bryan Oakley explains in his answer, class fields are key to understand the code as their names and types often reveal the intent better than the methods.
That being said, there is now a way to separate attribute definition from constructor initialization: pyfields. I wrote this library to be able to define the "contract" of a class in terms of attributes, while not requiring initialization in the constructor. This allows you in particular to create "mix-in classes" where attributes and methods relying on these attributes are defined, but no constructor is provided.
See this other answer for an example and details.

i think to keep it simple and understandable, better to initialize the class variables in the class constructor, so they can be directly called without the necessity of compiling of a specific class method.
class Cat():
def __init__(self,Meow,Roar):
self.meow = Meow
self.roar = Roar
def meow_bigger(self):
return self.roar
def mix(self):
return self.meow+self.roar
c=Cat("Meow!","Roar!")
print(c.meow_bigger())
print(c.mix())
Output
Roar!
Roar!
Meow!Roar!

Python __init__ class is really different from constructor

I'm wondering if someone have a concrete use of __init__ function which is not the same as a constructor.
Because I'm reading everywhere that this should not considered as a constructor, but i can't find any example taking advantage of this or really showing why it is so important.
So if someone have some concrete code showing it, i would be glad to see that !
Thank you

__init__() isn't a constructor per se because __init__() isn't necessarily always called when attempting to construct an object:
class C(object):
def __new__(cls):
return 5
def __init__(self):
print 'I am a crow! CAW! CAW!'
c = C()
print c

Class Example:
def __init__(self,value1,value2):
self.value1 = value1
self.value2 = value2
I am not an expert at python, and admit that the init function might have other uses, but to me it looks like, and acts like a constructor.
also by definition, its a constructor:
Dictionary.com - Constructor
scroll to bottom of link for computer related definition

http://docs.python.org/2/reference/datamodel.html
scroll down to classic classes, there it says that a class can exist without an init method, so the init initializes some stuff for the class, but at the moment the init is called, the object already exists. Or thats at least what i understand of it, since otherwise it would probably be more logical to name it __constr__ or so, instead of __init__
Not really an answer to your question i guess, but you can in some cases just not use init, (if you consider "not using it" as a use for it, than i did answer part of the question?)

Python 3: Giving a command to set attribute of self in __init__ with need to use "self"?

I know the question header sounds weird, but since English is not my first language, I find it very hard to formalize. However, I might be able to explain it with bit more text.
The problem is, that I'm trying to create a class called "Foo" for example.
# ../myProject/Foo.py
class Foo:
'''Represents an example class for stackoverflow'''
Now all of Foo class' instances have function attribute, which simply holds a function which can be executed via the instance. Also, there's a parameters attribute, a tuple or a list, which holds parameters which should be used when the function gets called.
def __init__(self, function, parameters):
self.function = function
self.parameters = parameters
def callFunction(self):
if self.function:
self.function(*self.parameters)
This seems to be working fine, however, the problem is, that I want to give it a default value, to change an attribute of the instance. I basically wanna do the following:
def __init__(self, function=setattr, \
parameters=(self, "togglableAttribute", not self.togglableAttribute)):
And doing this will raise NameError: name 'self' is not defined. How should I implement this in order for it to work, or should I come up with a workaround?

self is the typical variable name used to describe the instance. However, default arguments are evaluated when the function is created (at class creation time). Of course self doesn't exist yet because the class doesn't even exist yet -- The class is still in the process of being built.
The typical way to do this is to check for a sentinel;
def __init__(self, function=setattr, parameters=None):
if parameters is None:
parameters = (self, "togglableAttribute", not self.togglableAttribute)
See my answer here (and the comments below it) for a discussion of various objects that you can use as your sentinel and the various pros and cons of each.

Is there any particular reason why this syntax is used for instantiating a class?

I was wondering if anyone knew of a particular reason (other than purely stylistic) why the following languages these syntaxes to initiate a class?
Python:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self):
x = MyClass()
Ruby:
class AnotherClass
def initialize()
end
end
x = AnotherClass.new()
I can't understand why the syntax used for the constructor and the syntax used to actually get an instance of the class are so different. Sure, I know it doesn't really make a difference but, for example, in ruby what's wrong with making the constructor "new()"?

When you are creating an object of a class, you are doing more than just initializing it. You are allocating the memory for it, then initializing it, then returning it.
Note also that in Ruby, new() is a class method, while initialize() is an instance method. If you simply overrode new(), you would have to create the object first, then operate on that object, and return it, rather than the simpler initialize() where you can just refer to self, as the object has already been created for you by the built-in new() (or in Ruby, leave self off as it's implied).
In Objective-C, you can actually see what's going on a little more clearly (but more verbosely) because you need to do the allocation and initialization separately, since Objective-C can't pass argument lists from the allocation method to the initialization one:
[[MyClass alloc] initWithFoo: 1 bar: 2];

Actually in Python the constructor is __new__(), while __init__() is instance initializer.
__new__() is static class method, thus it has to be called first, as a first parameter (usually named cls or klass) it gets the class . It creates object instance, which is then passed to __init__() as first parameter (usually named self), along with all the rest of __new__'s parameters.

This is useful because in Python, a constructor is just another function. For example, I've done this several times:
def ClassThatShouldntBeDirectlyInstantiated():
return _classThatShouldntBeDirectlyInstantiated()
class _classThatShouldntBeDirectlyInstantiated(object):
...
Of course, that's a contrived example, but you get the idea. Essentially, most people that use your class will probably think of ClassThatShouldntBeDirectlyInstantiated as your class, and there's no need to let them think otherwise. Doing things this way, all you have to do is document the factory function as the class it instantiates and not confuse anyone using the class.
In a language like C# or Java, I sometimes find it annoying to make classes like this because it can be difficult to determine whether you should use the constructor or some factory function. I'm not sure if this is also the case in Ruby though.