Develop Reference

How can I append an item from a class method to a list inside another class?

I want to append an item to the list in Class A but when I call the list after the process, it just return an empty list. How exactly can I successfully append an item?
This is what I tried. I implement lst.append inside the getAnswer method but the appending was unsuccessful. Note that I only included snippet of my code because there are other things going on there. I am just concerned on knowing how can I successfully to the appending function.
class A:
lst = []
class B:
*#I implemented distance formula here*
class C:
def __init__(self, pt, tolerance):
self.pt = pt
def getAnswer(self, tolerance):
self.tolerance = tolerance
d = B(p1,p2).dist
if d <= self.tolerance:
lst.append(p2)
p_list = [p1, p2]
a = C(p_list, 7)
A.lst

Theres lots of things wrong with your question so I've bullet pointed them and then updated your snippet.
your instance of C is called a which is confusing
You pass in tolerance to your C initializer and never use it,
lst is a class variable of A but you aren't using it, instead you're making a new variable of the same name in your getAnswer function
getAnswer is never called.
getAnswer never "gets" anything so the function name is a bit misleading (havent modified)
you initiate B with two variables p1,p2 which don't exist in the scope of the function, but already exist in your pt list
class A:
lst = []
class B:
*#I implemented distance formula here*
class C:
def __init__(self, pt):
self.pt = pt
self.tolerance = None
def getAnswer(self, tolerance):
self.tolerance = tolerance
d = B(self.pt[0],self.pt[1]).dist
if d <= self.tolerance:
A.lst.append(p2)
p_list = [p1, p2]
c = C(p_list)
c.getAnswer(7)
A.lst
Whilst the above will update your list, its still odd to have C change A's list, I've left it as is because there are valid use cases and the variable names are too vague too suggest otherwise.

It does not work, because lst is a local variable inside the class/function. I would do:
class A:
global lst
lst = []
class C:
#init
def getAnswer(self, tolerance):
#stuff
#if
lst.append(p2)
Here is a test:
>>> class A:
global lst
lst = []
>>> class C:
def __init__(self):
lst.append("This is appended to the list!")
>>> C()
<__main__.C object at 0x0000021D25CF5640>
>>> """I just called the C __init__ function, let's see if it worked"""
"I just called the C __init__ function, let's see if it worked"
>>> print(lst)
['This is appended to the list!']
>>> """Yay!"""
'Yay!'
>>>

C-like Static Variable inside a Python class method

After 20 years of C++ experience I am struggling to learn something of Python.
Now I'd like to have a method (a function inside a class) that has a "static" variable of its own, and not a static class variable.
Probably a pseudo code example can illustrate better what I want.
class dummy:
#staticmethod
def foo():
foo.counter += 1
print "You have called me {} times.".format(foo.counter)
foo.counter = 0
NOTE 1: I used #staticmethod just for simplicity, but this is irrelevant.
NOTE 2: This crashes with AttributeError: 'staticmethod' object has no attribute 'counter' but as I said above, this is a pseudo code to clarify my objective.
I have already learned that this works outside a class:
def foo():
foo.counter += 1
print "You have called me {} times.".format(foo.counter)
foo.counter = 0
But the same trick doesn't seem to work for member-functions.
Last minute information, I am restricted to using Python 2.7 (not my choice).
Is there any legal and reliable way to have a persistent variable (or constant) with scope restricted to the member-function scope?
Some relevant links
"What is the Python equivalent of static variables inside a function?":
https://stackoverflow.com/a/279586/466339
"There are no function-level static variables in Python":
https://code-maven.com/slides/python-programming/static-variable
Thanks in advance.

One way to achieve this is to tuck your variable away in a closure, so it will effectively be static for your purposes. Unfortunately, Python 2 does not support the nonlocal keyword, so we have to wrap our variable's value in an object (unless you only mean to reference and not mutate the variable (i.e. assign to the variable) in the method:
In [7]: class _Nonlocal:
...: def __init__(self, value):
...: self.counter = value
...:
...: def foo_maker():
...: nonlocal = _Nonlocal(0)
...: def foo(self):
...: nonlocal.counter += 1
...: print "You have called me {} times.".format(nonlocal.counter)
...: return foo
...:
In [8]: class Dummy(object): #you should always inherit from object explicitely in python 2
...: foo = foo_maker()
...:
In [9]: dummy = Dummy()
In [10]: dummy.foo()
You have called me 1 times.
In [11]: dummy.foo()
You have called me 2 times.
Of course, this is a lot of rigamarole simply to avoid using an instance variable. Perhaps the best solution is to make your method a custom object, and you can implement the descriptor protocol to make it callable as a method, and it will be usable as an instance method if you'd like:
In [35]: import types
...:
...: class Foo(object):
...: def __init__(this):
...: this.counter = 0
...: def __call__(this, self):
...: this.counter += 1
...: print "You have called me {} times.".format(this.counter)
...: print "here is some instance state, self.bar: {}".format(self.bar)
...: def __get__(this, obj, objtype=None):
...: "Simulate func_descr_get() in Objects/funcobject.c"
...: if obj is None:
...: return this
...: return types.MethodType(this, obj)
...:
In [36]: class Dummy(object): #you should always inherit from object explicitely in python 2
...: foo = Foo()
...: def __init__(self):
...: self.bar = 42
...:
In [37]: dummy = Dummy()
In [38]: dummy.foo()
You have called me 1 times.
here is some instance state, self.bar: 42
In [39]: dummy.bar = 99
In [40]: dummy.foo()
You have called me 2 times.
here is some instance state, self.bar: 99
All of this would be highly irregular and confusing to someone else who is used to python conventions, although I hope you see, the Python data-model offers a lot of power to customize things.
note, i've used this as the name of the first argument to avoid confusion with self that will actually come from the object that Foo get's bound to as a method.
Again, I should reiterate, I would never do this. I would just use an instance variable, or perhaps a generator if your function needs to maintain state, and could be used as an iterator.

No, there is not. You've already found the Python version: a class variable that you, the supreme overlord of class dummy development, will access only within function foo.
If it would help to know the rationale for this, you can start that path here. I expect that you've already been through much of this; however, this answer gives Python specifics for more Pythonic ways to implement what you need.

As #Prune already mentioned there is no real way of doing so.
However, if you want the static variable inside a method to be available only to the object it belongs to (as it is in C++ as far as I remember), you should define it in the constructor or as a class variable with a non-static method:
from __future__ import print_function
class dummy:
def __init__(self, counter=0):
self._foo_counter = 0
def foo(self):
self._foo_counter += 1
print("You have called me {} times.".format(self._foo_counter))
or:
class dummy:
def foo(self):
self._foo_counter += 1
print("You have called me {} times.".format(self._foo_counter))
_foo_counter = 0
This way, running:
x = dummy()
for _ in range(4):
x.foo()
y = dummy()
for _ in range(4):
y.foo()
Results in:
You have called me 1 times.
You have called me 2 times.
You have called me 3 times.
You have called me 4 times.
You have called me 1 times.
You have called me 2 times.
You have called me 3 times.
You have called me 4 times.
Note that the two versions do not behave in exactly the same way.
When you define _foo_counter in the class directly, you will have access to the _foo_counter variable both for the object (self._foo_counter) and for the class itself (dummy._foo_counter).
The dummy._foo_counter will be static for every use of the class and will persist across multiple instances of the class, so across multiple objects.
This is also the only variable that you can access if you use the #staticmethod decorator on dummy.foo():
class dummy:
#staticmethod
def foo():
dummy._foo_counter += 1
print("You have called me {} times.".format(dummy._foo_counter))
_foo_counter = 0
Here, self or _foo_counter will not be accessible, and your only option is to use the class-wide variable dummy._foo_counter (which, as already mentioned, you could use with methods not decorated with #staticmethod as well).
So that running again:
x = dummy()
for _ in range(4):
x.foo()
y = dummy()
for _ in range(4):
y.foo()
results in:
You have called me 1 times.
You have called me 2 times.
You have called me 3 times.
You have called me 4 times.
You have called me 5 times.
You have called me 6 times.
You have called me 7 times.
You have called me 8 times.

Using a mutable type as the default value for a keyword argument for your function is maybe the simplest approach:
class Dummy:
#staticmethod
def foo(_counter=[0]): # here using a list, but you could use a dictionary, or a deque
_counter[0] += 1
print "You have called me {} times.".format(_counter[0])
The rationale is that this variable is initialized only once; its latest value remains in the closure formed.

I already posted this in an old post, but nobody noticed it
As I have a different idiomatic objective with static variables, I would like to expose the following:
In a function, I want to initialize a variable only once with a calculated value which may be a bit costly.
As I love nice-writing, and being an old C-style programmer. I tried to define a macro-like writing:
def Foo () :
StaticVar( Foo, ‘Var’, CalculateStatic())
StaticVar( Foo, ‘Step’, CalculateStep())
Foo.Var += Foo.Step
print(‘Value of Var : ‘, Foo.Var)
Then, I wrote ‘StaticVar’ like this:
def StaticVar(Cls, Var, StaticVal) :
if not hasattr(Cls, Var) :
setattr(Cls, Var, StaticVal)
I can even write nicer code in Python:
def StaticVars(Cls, **Vars) :
for Var, StaticVal in Vars.items() :
if not hasattr(Cls, Var) :
setattr(Cls, Var, StaticVal)
def Foo () :
StaticVars( Foo, Var = CalculateStatic(),Step= CalculateStep()))
Foo.Var += Foo. Step
print(‘Value of Var : ‘, Foo.Var)
Sure, this is a nice way to write the code, but my objective (only one call of initialization functions) is not met (just add a print in the initialization function to see that the it is called often) ! The fact is that, in a function call, the parameter value is evaluated even before the function is called.
def CalculateStatic() :
print("Costly Initialization")
return 0
def CalculateStep() :
return 2
def Test() :
Foo()
Foo()
Foo()
>>> Test()
Costly Initialization
Value of Var : 2
Costly Initialization
Value of Var : 4
Costly Initialization
Value of Var : 6
To meet my objective, I’d rather write something like this:
def Foo () :
if not hasattr(Foo, ‘Var’) :
setattr ( Foo, ‘Var’, CalculateStatic())
setattr ( Foo, ‘Step’, CalculateStep())
Foo.Var += Foo. Step
print(‘Value of Var : ‘, Foo.Var)
>>> Test()
Costly Initialization
Value of Var : 2
Value of Var : 4
Value of Var : 6
And it could be “nicely written” like this (I used the underscore notation refering to “private == static”):
def StaticVars(Cls, **Vars) :
for Var, StaticVal in Vars.items() :
setattr(Cls, Var, StaticVal)
def Foo () :
_ = Foo
try :
__ = _.Var
except AttributeError : # The above code could only generate AttributeError Exception
# the following code is executed only once
StaticDefVars(_, Var= CalculateStatic(), Step = CalculateStep())
_.Var += _. Step
print(‘Value of Var : ‘, Foo.Var)
Attention must be paid to not put 'calculation code' in the 'try' clause which could generate extra 'AttributeError' exception.
Sure, if Python had had 'Marcro preprocessing', it would be even nicer
"'

Python assignment to self in constructor does not make object the same

I am making a constructor in Python. When called with an existing object as its input, it should set the "new" object to that same object. Here is a 10 line demonstration:
class A:
def __init__(self, value):
if isinstance(value, A):
self = value
else:
self.attribute = value
a = A(1)
b = A(a)#a and b should be references to the same object
print("b is a", b is a)#this should be true: the identities should be the same
print("b == a", b == a)#this should be true: the values should be the same
I want the object A(a) constructed from the existing object a to be a. Why is it not? To be clear, I want A(a) to reference the same object as a, NOT a copy.

self, like any other argument, is among the local variables of a function or method. Assignment to the bare name of a local variable never affects anything outside of that function or method, it just locally rebinds that name.
As a comment rightly suggests, it's unclear why you wouldn't just do
b = a
Assuming you have a sound reason, what you need to override is not __init__, but rather __new__ (then take some precaution in __init__ to avoid double initialization). It's not an obvious course so I'll wait for you to explain what exactly you're trying to accomplish.
Added: having clarified the need I agree with the OP that a factory function (ideally, I suggest, as a class method) is better -- and clearer than __new__, which would work (it is a class method after all) but in a less-sharply-clear way.
So, I would code as follows:
class A(object):
#classmethod
def make(cls, value):
if isinstance(value, cls): return value
return cls(value)
def __init__(self, value):
self.attribute = value
Now,
a = A.make(1)
b = A.make(a)
accomplishes the OP's desires, polymorphically over the type of argument passed to A.make.

The only way to make it work exactly as you have it is to implement __new__, the constructor, rather than __init__, the initialiser (the behaviour can get rather complex if both are implemented). It would also be wise to implement __eq__ for equality comparison, although this will fall back to identity comparison. For example:
>>> class A(object):
def __new__(cls, value):
if isinstance(value, cls):
return value
inst = super(A, cls).__new__(cls)
inst.attribute = value
return inst
def __eq__(self, other):
return self.attribute == other.attribute
>>> a = A(1)
>>> b = A(a)
>>> a is b
True
>>> a == b
True
>>> a == A(1)
True # also equal to other instance with same attribute value
You should have a look at the data model documentation, which explains the various "magic methods" available and what they do. See e.g. __new__.

__init__ is an initializer, not a constructor. You would have to mess around with __new__ to do what you want, and it's probably not a good idea to go there.
Try
a = b = A(1)
instead.

If you call a constructor, it's going to create a new object. The simplest thing is to do what hacatu suggested and simply assign b to a's value. If not, perhaps you could have an if statement checking if the value passed in is equal to the object you want referenced and if it is, simply return that item before ever calling the constructor. I haven't tested so I'm not sure if it'd work.

Inspect python class attributes

I need a way to inspect a class so I can safely identify which attributes are user-defined class attributes. The problem is that functions like dir(), inspect.getmembers() and friends return all class attributes including the pre-defined ones like: __class__, __doc__, __dict__, __hash__. This is of course understandable, and one could argue that I could just make a list of named members to ignore, but unfortunately these pre-defined attributes are bound to change with different versions of Python therefore making my project volnerable to changed in the python project - and I don't like that.
example:
>>> class A:
... a=10
... b=20
... def __init__(self):
... self.c=30
>>> dir(A)
['__doc__', '__init__', '__module__', 'a', 'b']
>>> get_user_attributes(A)
['a','b']
In the example above I want a safe way to retrieve only the user-defined class attributes ['a','b'] not 'c' as it is an instance attribute. So my question is... Can anyone help me with the above fictive function get_user_attributes(cls)?
I have spent some time trying to solve the problem by parsing the class in AST level which would be very easy. But I can't find a way to convert already parsed objects to an AST node tree. I guess all AST info is discarded once a class has been compiled into bytecode.

Below is the hard way. Here's the easy way. Don't know why it didn't occur to me sooner.
import inspect
def get_user_attributes(cls):
boring = dir(type('dummy', (object,), {}))
return [item
for item in inspect.getmembers(cls)
if item[0] not in boring]
Here's a start
def get_user_attributes(cls):
boring = dir(type('dummy', (object,), {}))
attrs = {}
bases = reversed(inspect.getmro(cls))
for base in bases:
if hasattr(base, '__dict__'):
attrs.update(base.__dict__)
elif hasattr(base, '__slots__'):
if hasattr(base, base.__slots__[0]):
# We're dealing with a non-string sequence or one char string
for item in base.__slots__:
attrs[item] = getattr(base, item)
else:
# We're dealing with a single identifier as a string
attrs[base.__slots__] = getattr(base, base.__slots__)
for key in boring:
del attrs['key'] # we can be sure it will be present so no need to guard this
return attrs
This should be fairly robust. Essentially, it works by getting the attributes that are on a default subclass of object to ignore. It then gets the mro of the class that's passed to it and traverses it in reverse order so that subclass keys can overwrite superclass keys. It returns a dictionary of key-value pairs. If you want a list of key, value tuples like in inspect.getmembers then just return either attrs.items() or list(attrs.items()) in Python 3.
If you don't actually want to traverse the mro and just want attributes defined directly on the subclass then it's easier:
def get_user_attributes(cls):
boring = dir(type('dummy', (object,), {}))
if hasattr(cls, '__dict__'):
attrs = cls.__dict__.copy()
elif hasattr(cls, '__slots__'):
if hasattr(base, base.__slots__[0]):
# We're dealing with a non-string sequence or one char string
for item in base.__slots__:
attrs[item] = getattr(base, item)
else:
# We're dealing with a single identifier as a string
attrs[base.__slots__] = getattr(base, base.__slots__)
for key in boring:
del attrs['key'] # we can be sure it will be present so no need to guard this
return attrs

Double underscores on both ends of 'special attributes' have been a part of python before 2.0. It would be very unlikely that they would change that any time in the near future.
class Foo(object):
a = 1
b = 2
def get_attrs(klass):
return [k for k in klass.__dict__.keys()
if not k.startswith('__')
and not k.endswith('__')]
print get_attrs(Foo)
['a', 'b']

Thanks aaronasterling, you gave me the expression i needed :-)
My final class attribute inspector function looks like this:
def get_user_attributes(cls,exclude_methods=True):
base_attrs = dir(type('dummy', (object,), {}))
this_cls_attrs = dir(cls)
res = []
for attr in this_cls_attrs:
if base_attrs.count(attr) or (callable(getattr(cls,attr)) and exclude_methods):
continue
res += [attr]
return res
Either return class attribute variabels only (exclude_methods=True) or also retrieve the methods.
My initial tests og the above function supports both old and new-style python classes.
/ Jakob

If you use new style classes, could you simply subtract the attributes of the parent class?
class A(object):
a = 10
b = 20
#...
def get_attrs(Foo):
return [k for k in dir(Foo) if k not in dir(super(Foo))]
Edit: Not quite. __dict__,__module__ and __weakref__ appear when inheriting from object, but aren't there in object itself. You could special case these--I doubt they'd change very often.

Sorry for necro-bumping the thread. I'm surprised that there's still no simple function (or a library) to handle such common usage as of 2019.
I'd like to thank aaronasterling for the idea. Actually, set container provides a more straightforward way to express it:
class dummy: pass
def abridged_set_of_user_attributes(obj):
return set(dir(obj))-set(dir(dummy))
def abridged_list_of_user_attributes(obj):
return list(abridged_set_of_user_attributes(obj))
The original solution using list comprehension is actually two level of loops because there are two in keyword compounded, despite having only one for keyword made it look like less work than it is.

This worked for me to include user defined attributes with __ that might be be found in cls.__dict__
import inspect
class A:
__a = True
def __init__(self, _a, b, c):
self._a = _a
self.b = b
self.c = c
def test(self):
return False
cls = A(1, 2, 3)
members = inspect.getmembers(cls, predicate=lambda x: not inspect.ismethod(x))
attrs = set(dict(members).keys()).intersection(set(cls.__dict__.keys()))
__attrs = {m[0] for m in members if m[0].startswith(f'_{cls.__class__.__name__}')}
attrs.update(__attrs)
This will correctly yield: {'_A__a', '_a', 'b', 'c'}
You can update to clean the cls.__class__.__name__ if you wish

How should I declare default values for instance variables in Python?

Should I give my class members default values like this:
class Foo:
num = 1
or like this?
class Foo:
def __init__(self):
self.num = 1
In this question I discovered that in both cases,
bar = Foo()
bar.num += 1
is a well-defined operation.
I understand that the first method will give me a class variable while the second one will not. However, if I do not require a class variable, but only need to set a default value for my instance variables, are both methods equally good? Or one of them more 'pythonic' than the other?
One thing I've noticed is that in the Django tutorial, they use the second method to declare Models. Personally I think the second method is more elegant, but I'd like to know what the 'standard' way is.

Extending bp's answer, I wanted to show you what he meant by immutable types.
First, this is okay:
>>> class TestB():
... def __init__(self, attr=1):
... self.attr = attr
...
>>> a = TestB()
>>> b = TestB()
>>> a.attr = 2
>>> a.attr
2
>>> b.attr
1
However, this only works for immutable (unchangable) types. If the default value was mutable (meaning it can be replaced), this would happen instead:
>>> class Test():
... def __init__(self, attr=[]):
... self.attr = attr
...
>>> a = Test()
>>> b = Test()
>>> a.attr.append(1)
>>> a.attr
[1]
>>> b.attr
[1]
>>>
Note that both a and b have a shared attribute. This is often unwanted.
This is the Pythonic way of defining default values for instance variables, when the type is mutable:
>>> class TestC():
... def __init__(self, attr=None):
... if attr is None:
... attr = []
... self.attr = attr
...
>>> a = TestC()
>>> b = TestC()
>>> a.attr.append(1)
>>> a.attr
[1]
>>> b.attr
[]
The reason my first snippet of code works is because, with immutable types, Python creates a new instance of it whenever you want one. If you needed to add 1 to 1, Python makes a new 2 for you, because the old 1 cannot be changed. The reason is mostly for hashing, I believe.

The two snippets do different things, so it's not a matter of taste but a matter of what's the right behaviour in your context. Python documentation explains the difference, but here are some examples:
Exhibit A
class Foo:
def __init__(self):
self.num = 1
This binds num to the Foo instances. Change to this field is not propagated to other instances.
Thus:
>>> foo1 = Foo()
>>> foo2 = Foo()
>>> foo1.num = 2
>>> foo2.num
1
Exhibit B
class Bar:
num = 1
This binds num to the Bar class. Changes are propagated!
>>> bar1 = Bar()
>>> bar2 = Bar()
>>> bar1.num = 2 #this creates an INSTANCE variable that HIDES the propagation
>>> bar2.num
1
>>> Bar.num = 3
>>> bar2.num
3
>>> bar1.num
2
>>> bar1.__class__.num
3
Actual answer
If I do not require a class variable, but only need to set a default value for my instance variables, are both methods equally good? Or one of them more 'pythonic' than the other?
The code in exhibit B is plain wrong for this: why would you want to bind a class attribute (default value on instance creation) to the single instance?
The code in exhibit A is okay.
If you want to give defaults for instance variables in your constructor I would however do this:
class Foo:
def __init__(self, num = None):
self.num = num if num is not None else 1
...or even:
class Foo:
DEFAULT_NUM = 1
def __init__(self, num = None):
self.num = num if num is not None else DEFAULT_NUM
...or even: (preferrable, but if and only if you are dealing with immutable types!)
class Foo:
def __init__(self, num = 1):
self.num = num
This way you can do:
foo1 = Foo(4)
foo2 = Foo() #use default

Using class members to give default values works very well just so long as you are careful only to do it with immutable values. If you try to do it with a list or a dict that would be pretty deadly. It also works where the instance attribute is a reference to a class just so long as the default value is None.
I've seen this technique used very successfully in repoze which is a framework that runs on top of Zope. The advantage here is not just that when your class is persisted to the database only the non-default attributes need to be saved, but also when you need to add a new field into the schema all the existing objects see the new field with its default value without any need to actually change the stored data.
I find it also works well in more general coding, but it's a style thing. Use whatever you are happiest with.

With dataclasses, a feature added in Python 3.7, there is now yet another (quite convenient) way to achieve setting default values on class instances. The decorator dataclass will automatically generate a few methods on your class, such as the constructor. As the documentation linked above notes, "[t]he member variables to use in these generated methods are defined using PEP 526 type annotations".
Considering OP's example, we could implement it like this:
from dataclasses import dataclass
#dataclass
class Foo:
num: int = 0
When constructing an object of this class's type we could optionally overwrite the value.
print('Default val: {}'.format(Foo()))
# Default val: Foo(num=0)
print('Custom val: {}'.format(Foo(num=5)))
# Custom val: Foo(num=5)

Using class members for default values of instance variables is not a good idea, and it's the first time I've seen this idea mentioned at all. It works in your example, but it may fail in a lot of cases. E.g., if the value is mutable, mutating it on an unmodified instance will alter the default:
>>> class c:
... l = []
...
>>> x = c()
>>> y = c()
>>> x.l
[]
>>> y.l
[]
>>> x.l.append(10)
>>> y.l
[10]
>>> c.l
[10]

You can also declare class variables as None which will prevent propagation. This is useful when you need a well defined class and want to prevent AttributeErrors.
For example:
>>> class TestClass(object):
... t = None
...
>>> test = TestClass()
>>> test.t
>>> test2 = TestClass()
>>> test.t = 'test'
>>> test.t
'test'
>>> test2.t
>>>
Also if you need defaults:
>>> class TestClassDefaults(object):
... t = None
... def __init__(self, t=None):
... self.t = t
...
>>> test = TestClassDefaults()
>>> test.t
>>> test2 = TestClassDefaults([])
>>> test2.t
[]
>>> test.t
>>>
Of course still follow the info in the other answers about using mutable vs immutable types as the default in __init__.