I'm learning strategy pattern and I would like to use parent class attributes in the dynamically assigned functions.
For example (you can guess the book):
class Duck():
def __init__(self, wingspan: int, quack_behavior, fly_behavior):
self.wingspan = wingspan
self.quack = quack_behavior.quack
self.fly = fly_behavior.fly
def quack(self):
pass
def fly(self):
pass
class FlyWithWings():
def fly(self):
print("I'm flying with wings")
print(f"speed of {self.wingspan*1.1}")
class Quack():
def quack(self):
print("Quack, quack!")
class MallardDuck(Duck):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__(wingspan=22, quack_behavior=Quack(), fly_behavior = FlyWithWings())
if __name__ == "__main__":
# welcome to the duck pond simulator
first_duck = MallardDuck()
first_duck.quack()
first_duck.fly()
This fails with
AttributeError: 'FlyWithWings' object has no attribute 'wingspan'
A side note:
I'm violating the loose coupling principal because FlyWithWings() class depends on an attribute named wingspan. But I've run into problems with functions that needed a dozen attributes, which become hard to maintain.
FlyWithWings is not aware of the specific wingspan of the object it's being used in. You can create a closure with the wingspan using functools.partial. This creates a function object with "frozen" arguments. So you can do:
from functools import partial
class Duck():
def __init__(self, wingspan: int, quack_behavior, fly_behavior):
self.wingspan = wingspan
self.quack = quack_behavior.quack
self.fly = partial(fly_behavior.fly, wingspan)
And change FlyWthWings to:
class FlyWithWings():
def fly(self, wingspan):
print("I'm flying with wings")
print(f"speed of {wingspan*1.1}")
Related
I am having trouble trying to call a function with one class that calls a separate function that exists within another class.
class PrintNum():
def get_square(self):
Numbers.square_Num(self)
def Print_Num(self):
Numbers.square_Num(self)
class Numbers():
def __init__(self, num1,num2):
self.num1=num1
self.num2=num2
def show_num(self):
return self.num1,self.mum2,
def square_Num(self):
self.num1,self.mum2, = self.num1**2,self.num2**2
p2= PrintNum(3,6)
p2.get_square()
print(p2.Print_Num)
To Get Such Behaviour from your classes, You need to use either inheritance or Embed the class. I used embedding to solve the problem above although I feel inheritance might be better suited here.
class PrintNum():
def __init__(self,a1,a2):
self.numbers = Numbers(a1,a2)
def get_square(self):
self.numbers.square_Num(self)
def Print_Num(self):
print(self.numbers)
class Numbers():
def __init__(self, num1,num2):
self.num1=num1
self.num2=num2
def __repr__(self):
print(self.num1)
return self.num2
def square_Num(self,*args,**kwargs):
self.num1,self.num2 = self.num1**2,self.num2**2
p2= PrintNum(3,6)
p2.get_square()
p2.Print_Num()
You want something like this:
class PrintNum:
def get_square(self):
Numbers().square_Num()
def Print_Num(self):
Numbers().square_Num()
The methods of the Numbers class are instance methods - they need to be called on an instance of the class, not the class itself. We make an instance by calling the class:
numbers_instance = Numbers()
So in PrintNum's methods we create an instance of Numbers before calling the methods.
In this case, you are not using classes correctly. The parameter self references the object instance you created of the given class. You should not try to access it outside of the instance methods of a class. Trying to pass the self parameter to a different class will not work because they would represent two different object instances. In this case, you never instantiate a Numbers object at all, so it has no instance. To do this properly, instantiate a Numbers instance inside of PrintNum and then call its instance methods like so:
class PrintNum():
def __init__(self):
self.numbers = Numbers()
def get_square(self):
return self.numbers.square_number()
def print_number(self):
return self.numbers.show_num()
class Numbers():
def __init__(self):
self.num1=2
self.num2=3
def show_num(self):
return self.num1,self.mum2
def square_number(self):
self.num1,self.mum2 = self.num1**2,self.num2**2
p2= PrintNum()
p2.get_square()
print(p2.print_number())
I would like to know if it's possible, and if yes, how to access attribute(s) of a "super" class instance, when having composition implemented.
Example provided below is only to provide idea here and setup common ground on further explanations.
I want to have access to "id" attribute for an instance of MiniVan directly from object "door" (type DoorElement).
My Code
class Car:
def __init__(self, _id):
self.id = _id
class CarElement:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def get_car_id(self):
# Body which will access value of attribute "id"
return car_id
class MiniVan(Car):
def __init__(self, _id):
super(MiniVan, self).__init__(_id)
self.door = DoorElement('door')
self.engine = EngineElement('engine')
class DoorElement(CarElement):
def __init__(self, name):
super(DoorElement, self).__init__(name)
class EngineElement(CarElement):
def __init__(self, name):
super(EngineElement, self).__init__(name)
def main():
mini_van = MiniVan(123)
id_from_door = mini_van.door.get_car_id()
id_from_engine = mini_van.engine.get_car_id()
print(id_from_door) # Expected output 123
print(id_from_engine) # Expected output 123
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Expected:
Printed out twice "123"
What I've tried:
Passing required attribute during creating object
I know that I could just define init method with passing "car_id" but for some reasons I would love to avoid it if possible. If not, I would propably just go for it.
to set class attribute, and then call it from CarElement class within classmethod e.g.:
#classmethod
def get_id(cls):
return Car.id
But issue with this solution is that, I can have many child-classes for Car class (MiniVan, Truck, etc.) and I want have it still working.
Trying to use descriptor
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
return instance.id
But I could understand it wrong, and actually getter (as far as I understand clean code) should return instance of a class and not any attribute.
Additional Info
I will ALWAYS use CarElement (or child classes) instances as attributes of instance of Car (or child classes) instances - different usage will be treated as use-error
There can be a lot of different child classes of Car class, but always within inheritance way ( Car <- RacingCar(Car) <- FormulaOneCar(RacingCar) ) but no composition
In order for your code to work, you would have to initialize all CarElement-s with car_id. Currently, the error you are getting comes from lack of such a variable in the scope of the method. My idea of a change is this:
class CarElement:
def __init__(self, name, car_id):
self.name = name
self.car_id = car_id
def get_car_id(self):
# Body which will access value of attribute id
return self.car_id
I can't see any other magic way.
I'm working in Python 2.7.8. What follows is a slight variant of the problem I'm working on.
I have a large number of custom classes that I've written where the inheritance is like a tree. The behavior is well encapsulated by the following example:
import random
class Animal(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
self.can_own_pets = False #most Animals cannot own pets
self.get_features()
def give_pet(self, pet):
if not self.can_own_pets:
print(self.name+' cannot own a pet!')
else:
self.pets.append(pet)
def is_hungry(self):
return random.choice([True, False])
def get_features(self):
"""
In some classes, get features will be a function
that uses self.name to extract features.
In my problem, the features are extracted
with regular expressions that are determined by
by the class.
"""
pass
class Human(Animal):
def __init__(self, name):
super(Human, self).__init__(name)
self.can_own_pets = True
self.pets = []
class Dog(Animal):
def __init__(self, name):
super(Dog, self).__init__(name)
def bark(self):
print 'WOOF'
def get_features(self):
if 'chihuahua' in self.name:
self.is_annoying = True
elif 'corgi' in self.name:
self.adorable = True
My program needs to take in a large number of animals and delegate them to the correct classes -- I need the correct attributes and methods. What I would like to do is modify the Animal constructor so that if the name argument is something like "Finn the Dog" or "Jake the Human", it (the constructor) returns an instance of the class "Dog" or "Human", complete with the appropriate methods and attributes. Now, I know that I could easily write a function that takes a string and class as arguments, constructs a dictionary where the keys are the names of the subclasses of the given class, looks up the element of the dictionary that is contained in the string, and returns an object of that class. My question is whether or not there is a way to code this into the Animal class itself, which seems more elegant to me (as well as easier to maintain).
Here's an implementation --
def _get_all_subclasses(cls):
for scls in cls.__subclasses__():
yield scls
for scls in _get_all_subclasses(scls):
yield scls
class Animal(object):
#staticmethod
def from_string(s):
for cls in _get_all_subclasses(Animal):
# Somehow pick the class based on the string... This is a really simple example...
if cls.__name__ in s:
return cls()
raise ValueError('Bummer. Animal has not been discovered.')
class Dog(Animal):
pass
class Cat(Animal):
pass
class Lion(Cat):
pass
print Animal.from_string('is a Dog')
print Animal.from_string('is a Cat')
print Animal.from_string('Lions!!!')
print Animal.from_string('Lockness Monster')
There are limitations here
All of the constructors need to be pretty much the same which means that Cat.__init__ needs to basically do the same thing that Human.__init__ does.
After you create the instance, your code needs to have logic to handle Cat, Human, Dog, etc. In some cases that's Ok (e.g. the code really only cares that it is working with an Animal), but frequently it isn't (after all, Cats can walk on fences, but Humans can't).
Generally, the principle that I like to live by is to try to make the inputs to my functions permissive (is it a list or a tuple? Who cares! Duck Typing FTW!) but to try to have really well defined outputs. I think that this makes interfaces easier to use in the long haul and the code that I wrote above would probably not pass a code review if I was the reviewer :-).
To build upon mgilson's answer
You can override the __new__ method so that you can instantiate the classes like normal without a static method.
class Animal(object):
#classmethod
def _get_all_subclasses(cls):
for scls in cls.__subclasses__():
yield scls
for scls in scls._get_all_subclasses():
yield scls
def __new__(cls, name):
cls_ = cls
for subcls in Animal._get_all_subclasses():
if subcls.__name__ in name:
cls_ = subcls
break
instance = object.__new__(cls_)
if not issubclass(cls_, cls):
instance.__init__(name)
return instance
I have the following problem that I will attempt to illustrate with the following example.
class Brick():
def __init__(self):
self.weight = 1
class House():
def __init__(self, number_bricks):
self.bricks = [Brick() for i in range(number_bricks)]
def get_weight(self):
return reduce(lambda x,y: x+y, [brick.weight for brick in self.bricks])
But now suppose I create a new kind of Brick, StrongBrick, so that I make a house, a subclass StrongHouse, where StrongBrick plays exactly the same role in StrongHouse as Brick plays in House. How can I do this in a nice way (not just retyping all the class definitions)?
So the basic idea is, how can I change a class which is composed of some objects to the same class but composed of say a subclass of the original member objects?
Thanks very much for any help you can give me.
You could have a factory (a brickyard?) and pass that to House.__init__().
class Brick(object): pass
class StrongBrick(Brick): pass
class House(object):
def __init__(self, brick_factory, num_bricks):
self.bricks = [brick_factory() for i in range(num_bricks)]
house = House(Brick, 10000)
strong_house = House(StrongBrick, 10000)
As you can see, subclassing House isn't even necessary to be able to construct houses from different types of bricks.
There are various ways to do this. You could make the relevant Brick class an attribute of the House class:
class House(object):
brick_class = Brick
def __init__(self, number_bricks):
self.bricks = [self.brick_class() for i in range(number_bricks)]
class StrongHouse(House):
brick_class = StrongBrick
Or, you could pass in the Brick class you want to use when constructing the House:
class House(object):
def __init__(self, brick_class, number_bricks):
self.bricks = [brick_class() for i in range(number_bricks)]
One nice pattern could be this:
class Brick(object):
weight = 1
class StrongBrick(Brick):
weight = 42
class House(object):
brick_type = Brick
def __init__(self, number_bricks):
self.bricks = [self.brick_type() for i in range(number_bricks)]
def get_weight(self):
return reduce(lambda x, y: x + y, [brick.weight for brick in self.bricks])
class StrongHouse(House):
brick_type = StrongBrick
Another is to make a function making a factory, and using an argument for the brick_type with default value:
class House(object):
def __init__(self, number_bricks, brick_type=Brick):
self.bricks = [brick_type() for i in range(number_bricks)]
def get_weight(self):
return reduce(lambda x, y: x + y, [brick.weight for brick in self.bricks])
def make_house_factory(brick_type):
def factory(number_bricks):
return House(number_bricks, brick_type)
return factory
StrongHouse = make_house_factory(StrongBrick)
Of course all such objects would be instances of the House only, even though I named StrongHouse here so that it resembles a class name.
But now suppose I create a new kind of Brick, StrongBrick, so that I make a house, a subclass StrongHouse, where StrongBrick plays exactly the same role in StrongHouse as Brick plays in House. How can I do this in a nice way (not just retyping all the class definitions)?
As all of the other answers have explained, you really don't want to create this parallel hierarchy at all. But to answer your direct question: You can create classes dynamically, so you can create a parallel hierarchy without copying and pasting all the class definitions. Classes are, after all, first-class objects.
Again, let me stress that you almost certainly don't want to do this, and I'm just showing that it is possible.
def make_house_class(brick_type):
class NewHouse(House):
def __init__(self, number_bricks):
self.bricks = [brick_type() for i in range(number_bricks)]
return NewHouse
Now, you could statically create all the house types:
StrongHouse = make_house_class(StrongBrick)
CheapHouse = make_house_class(CheapHouse)
# ...
… or maybe build them dynamically from a collection of all of your brick type:
brick_types = (StrongBrick, CheapBrick)
house_types = {brick_type: make_house_class(brick_type) for brick_type in brick_types}
… or even add some hacky introspection to just create a new FooHouse type for every FooBrick type in the current module:
for name, value in globals().items():
if name.endswith('Brick') and name != 'Brick' and isinstance(value, type):
globals()[name.replace('Brick', 'House')] = make_house_class(value)
… or even create them on the fly as needed in the factory-maker:
def make_house_factory(brick_type):
house_type = make_house_class(brick_type)
def factory(number_bricks):
return house_type(number_bricks, brick_type)
return factory
… or even the generated factory:
def make_house_factory(brick_type):
def factory(number_bricks):
return make_house_class(brick_type)(number_bricks, brick_type)
return factory
Add a parameter to the House.__init__ so that you can specify the Brick type:
import functools
class Brick():
def __init__(self):
self.weight = 1
class StrongBrick():
def __init__(self):
self.weight = 10
class House():
def __init__(self, number_bricks,brick_type=Brick):
self.bricks = [brick_type() for i in range(number_bricks)]
def get_weight(self):
return reduce(lambda x,y: x+y, [brick.weight for brick in self.bricks])
#not a new class, but an alias with a different default brick_type
StrongHouse = functools.partial(House,brick_type=StrongBrick)
I've read What are Class methods in Python for? but the examples in that post are complex. I am looking for a clear, simple, bare-bones example of a particular use case for classmethods in Python.
Can you name a small, specific example use case where a Python classmethod would be the right tool for the job?
Helper methods for initialization:
class MyStream(object):
#classmethod
def from_file(cls, filepath, ignore_comments=False):
with open(filepath, 'r') as fileobj:
for obj in cls(fileobj, ignore_comments):
yield obj
#classmethod
def from_socket(cls, socket, ignore_comments=False):
raise NotImplemented # Placeholder until implemented
def __init__(self, iterable, ignore_comments=False):
...
Well __new__ is a pretty important classmethod. It's where instances usually come from
so dict() calls dict.__new__ of course, but there is another handy way to make dicts sometimes which is the classmethod dict.fromkeys()
eg.
>>> dict.fromkeys("12345")
{'1': None, '3': None, '2': None, '5': None, '4': None}
I don't know, something like named constructor methods?
class UniqueIdentifier(object):
value = 0
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
#classmethod
def produce(cls):
instance = cls(cls.value)
cls.value += 1
return instance
class FunkyUniqueIdentifier(UniqueIdentifier):
#classmethod
def produce(cls):
instance = super(FunkyUniqueIdentifier, cls).produce()
instance.name = "Funky %s" % instance.name
return instance
Usage:
>>> x = UniqueIdentifier.produce()
>>> y = FunkyUniqueIdentifier.produce()
>>> x.name
0
>>> y.name
Funky 1
The biggest reason for using a #classmethod is in an alternate constructor that is intended to be inherited. This can be very useful in polymorphism. An example:
class Shape(object):
# this is an abstract class that is primarily used for inheritance defaults
# here is where you would define classmethods that can be overridden by inherited classes
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
# return a default instance of cls
return cls()
Notice that Shape is an abstract class that defines a classmethod from_square, since Shape is not really defined, it does not really know how to derive itself from a Square so it simply returns a default instance of the class.
Inherited classes are then allowed to define their own versions of this method:
class Square(Shape):
def __init__(self, side=10):
self.side = side
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
return cls(side=square.side)
class Rectangle(Shape):
def __init__(self, length=10, width=10):
self.length = length
self.width = width
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
return cls(length=square.side, width=square.side)
class RightTriangle(Shape):
def __init__(self, a=10, b=10):
self.a = a
self.b = b
self.c = ((a*a) + (b*b))**(.5)
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
return cls(a=square.length, b=square.width)
class Circle(Shape):
def __init__(self, radius=10):
self.radius = radius
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
return cls(radius=square.length/2)
The usage allows you to treat all of these uninstantiated classes polymorphically
square = Square(3)
for polymorphic_class in (Square, Rectangle, RightTriangle, Circle):
this_shape = polymorphic_class.from_square(square)
This is all fine and dandy you might say, but why couldn't I just use as #staticmethod to accomplish this same polymorphic behavior:
class Circle(Shape):
def __init__(self, radius=10):
self.radius = radius
#staticmethod
def from_square(square):
return Circle(radius=square.length/2)
The answer is that you could, but you do not get the benefits of inheritance because Circle has to be called out explicitly in the method. Meaning if I call it from an inherited class without overriding, I would still get Circle every time.
Notice what is gained when I define another shape class that does not really have any custom from_square logic:
class Hexagon(Shape):
def __init__(self, side=10):
self.side = side
# note the absence of classmethod here, this will use from_square it inherits from shape
Here you can leave the #classmethod undefined and it will use the logic from Shape.from_square while retaining who cls is and return the appropriate shape.
square = Square(3)
for polymorphic_class in (Square, Rectangle, RightTriangle, Circle, Hexagon):
this_shape = polymorphic_class.from_square(square)
I find that I most often use #classmethod to associate a piece of code with a class, to avoid creating a global function, for cases where I don't require an instance of the class to use the code.
For example, I might have a data structure which only considers a key valid if it conforms to some pattern. I may want to use this from inside and outside of the class. However, I don't want to create yet another global function:
def foo_key_is_valid(key):
# code for determining validity here
return valid
I'd much rather group this code with the class it's associated with:
class Foo(object):
#classmethod
def is_valid(cls, key):
# code for determining validity here
return valid
def add_key(self, key, val):
if not Foo.is_valid(key):
raise ValueError()
..
# lets me reuse that method without an instance, and signals that
# the code is closely-associated with the Foo class
Foo.is_valid('my key')
Another useful example of classmethod is in extending enumerated types. A classic Enum provides symbolic names which can be used later in the code for readability, grouping, type-safety, etc. This can be extended to add useful features using a classmethod. In the example below, Weekday is an enuerated type for the days of the week. It has been extended using classmethod so that instead of keeping track of the weekday ourselves, the enumerated type can extract the date and return the related enum member.
from enum import Enum
from datetime import date
class Weekday(Enum):
MONDAY = 1
TUESDAY = 2
WEDNESDAY = 3
THURSDAY = 4
FRIDAY = 5
SATURDAY = 6
SUNDAY = 7
#
#classmethod
def from_date(cls, date):
return cls(date.isoweekday())
Weekday.from_date(date.today())
<Weekday.TUESDAY: 2>
Source: https://docs.python.org/3/howto/enum.html
in class MyClass(object):
'''
classdocs
'''
obj=0
x=classmethod
def __init__(self):
'''
Constructor
'''
self.nom='lamaizi'
self.prenom='anas'
self.age=21
self.ville='Casablanca'
if __name__:
ob=MyClass()
print(ob.nom)
print(ob.prenom)
print(ob.age)
print(ob.ville)