Develop Reference

How do I pass attributes of first class to another class inside a class [duplicate]

I have a situation like so...
class Outer(object):
def some_method(self):
# do something
class Inner(object):
def __init__(self):
self.Outer.some_method() # <-- this is the line in question
How can I access the Outer class's method from the Inner class?

You're trying to access Outer's class instance, from inner class instance. So just use factory-method to build Inner instance and pass Outer instance to it.
class Outer(object):
def createInner(self):
return Outer.Inner(self)
class Inner(object):
def __init__(self, outer_instance):
self.outer_instance = outer_instance
self.outer_instance.somemethod()
def inner_method(self):
self.outer_instance.anothermethod()

The methods of a nested class cannot directly access the instance attributes of the outer class.
Note that it is not necessarily the case that an instance of the outer class exists even when you have created an instance of the inner class.
In fact, it is often recommended against using nested classes, since the nesting does not imply any particular relationship between the inner and outer classes.

maybe I'm mad but this seems very easy indeed - the thing is to make your inner class inside a method of the outer class...
def do_sthg(self):
...
def mess_around(self):
outer_class_self = self
class Mooble():
def do_sthg_different(self):
...
outer_class_self.do_sthg()
Plus... "self" is only used by convention, so you could do this:
def do_sthg(self):
...
def mess_around(outer_class_self):
class Mooble():
def do_sthg_different(self):
...
outer_class_self.do_sthg()
It might be objected that you can't then create this inner class from outside the outer class... but this ain't true:
class Bumblebee():
def do_sthg(self):
print "sthg"
def give_me_an_inner_class(outer_class_self):
class Mooble():
def do_sthg_different(self):
print "something diff\n"
outer_class_self.do_sthg()
return Mooble
then, somewhere miles away:
blob = Bumblebee().give_me_an_inner_class()()
blob.do_sthg_different()
even push the boat out a bit and extend this inner class (NB to get super() to work you have to change the class signature of Mooble to class Mooble(object)).
class InnerBumblebeeWithAddedBounce(Bumblebee().give_me_an_inner_class()):
def bounce(self):
print "bounce"
def do_sthg_different(self):
super(InnerBumblebeeWithAddedBounce, self).do_sthg_different()
print "and more different"
ibwab = InnerBumblebeeWithAddedBounce()
ibwab.bounce()
ibwab.do_sthg_different()
later
mrh1997 raised an interesting point about the non-common inheritance of inner classes delivered using this technique. But it seems that the solution is pretty straightforward:
class Fatty():
def do_sthg(self):
pass
class InnerFatty(object):
pass
def give_me_an_inner_fatty_class(self):
class ExtendedInnerFatty(Fatty.InnerFatty):
pass
return ExtendedInnerFatty
fatty1 = Fatty()
fatty2 = Fatty()
innerFattyClass1 = fatty1.give_me_an_inner_fatty_class()
innerFattyClass2 = fatty2.give_me_an_inner_fatty_class()
print (issubclass(innerFattyClass1, Fatty.InnerFatty))
print (issubclass(innerFattyClass2, Fatty.InnerFatty))

I found this.
Tweaked to suite your question:
class Outer(object):
def some_method(self):
# do something
class _Inner(object):
def __init__(self, outer):
outer.some_method()
def Inner(self):
return _Inner(self)
I’m sure you can somehow write a decorator for this or something
related: What is the purpose of python's inner classes?

A few years late to the party.... but to expand on #mike rodent's wonderful answer, I've provided my own example below that shows just how flexible his solution is, and why it should be (or should have been) the accepted answer.
Python 3.7
class Parent():
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
self.children = []
class Inner(object):
pass
def Child(self, name):
parent = self
class Child(Parent.Inner):
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
self.parent = parent
parent.children.append(self)
return Child(name)
parent = Parent('Bar')
child1 = parent.Child('Foo')
child2 = parent.Child('World')
print(
# Getting its first childs name
child1.name, # From itself
parent.children[0].name, # From its parent
# Also works with the second child
child2.name,
parent.children[1].name,
# Go nuts if you want
child2.parent.children[0].name,
child1.parent.children[1].name
)
print(
# Getting the parents name
parent.name, # From itself
child1.parent.name, # From its children
child2.parent.name,
# Go nuts again if you want
parent.children[0].parent.name,
parent.children[1].parent.name,
# Or insane
child2.parent.children[0].parent.children[1].parent.name,
child1.parent.children[1].parent.children[0].parent.name
)
# Second parent? No problem
parent2 = Parent('John')
child3 = parent2.Child('Doe')
child4 = parent2.Child('Appleseed')
print(
child3.name, parent2.children[0].name,
child4.name, parent2.children[1].name,
parent2.name # ....
)
Output:
Foo Foo World World Foo World
Bar Bar Bar Bar Bar Bar Bar
Doe Doe Appleseed Appleseed John
Again, a wonderful answer, props to you mike!

You can easily access to outer class using metaclass: after creation of outer class check it's attribute dict for any classes (or apply any logic you need - mine is just trivial example) and set corresponding values:
import six
import inspect
# helper method from `peewee` project to add metaclass
_METACLASS_ = '_metaclass_helper_'
def with_metaclass(meta, base=object):
return meta(_METACLASS_, (base,), {})
class OuterMeta(type):
def __new__(mcs, name, parents, dct):
cls = super(OuterMeta, mcs).__new__(mcs, name, parents, dct)
for klass in dct.values():
if inspect.isclass(klass):
print("Setting outer of '%s' to '%s'" % (klass, cls))
klass.outer = cls
return cls
# #six.add_metaclass(OuterMeta) -- this is alternative to `with_metaclass`
class Outer(with_metaclass(OuterMeta)):
def foo(self):
return "I'm outer class!"
class Inner(object):
outer = None # <-- by default it's None
def bar(self):
return "I'm inner class"
print(Outer.Inner.outer)
>>> <class '__main__.Outer'>
assert isinstance(Outer.Inner.outer(), Outer)
print(Outer().foo())
>>> I'm outer class!
print(Outer.Inner.outer().foo())
>>> I'm outer class!
print(Outer.Inner().outer().foo())
>>> I'm outer class!
print(Outer.Inner().bar())
>>> I'm inner class!
Using this approach, you can easily bind and refer two classes between each other.

I've created some Python code to use an outer class from its inner class, based on a good idea from another answer for this question. I think it's short, simple and easy to understand.
class higher_level__unknown_irrelevant_name__class:
def __init__(self, ...args...):
...other code...
# Important lines to access sub-classes.
subclasses = self._subclass_container()
self.some_subclass = subclasses["some_subclass"]
del subclasses # Free up variable for other use.
def sub_function(self, ...args...):
...other code...
def _subclass_container(self):
_parent_class = self # Create access to parent class.
class some_subclass:
def __init__(self):
self._parent_class = _parent_class # Easy access from self.
# Optional line, clears variable space, but SHOULD NOT BE USED
# IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE SUBCLASSES as would stop their parent access.
# del _parent_class
class subclass_2:
def __init__(self):
self._parent_class = _parent_class
# Return reference(s) to the subclass(es).
return {"some_subclass": some_subclass, "subclass_2": subclass_2}
The main code, "production ready" (without comments, etc.). Remember to replace all of each value in angle brackets (e.g. <x>) with the desired value.
class <higher_level_class>:
def __init__(self):
subclasses = self._subclass_container()
self.<sub_class> = subclasses[<sub_class, type string>]
del subclasses
def _subclass_container(self):
_parent_class = self
class <sub_class>:
def __init__(self):
self._parent_class = _parent_class
return {<sub_class, type string>: <sub_class>}
Explanation of how this method works (the basic steps):
Create a function named _subclass_container to act as a wrapper to access the variable self, a reference to the higher level class (from code running inside the function).
Create a variable named _parent_class which is a reference to the variable self of this function, that the sub-classes of _subclass_container can access (avoids name conflicts with other self variables in subclasses).
Return the sub-class/sub-classes as a dictionary/list so code calling the _subclass_container function can access the sub-classes inside.
In the __init__ function inside the higher level class (or wherever else needed), receive the returned sub-classes from the function _subclass_container into the variable subclasses.
Assign sub-classes stored in the subclasses variable to attributes of the higher level class.
A few tips to make scenarios easier:
Making the code to assign the sub classes to the higher level class easier to copy and be used in classes derived from the higher level class that have their __init__ function changed:
Insert before line 12 in the main code:
def _subclass_init(self):
Then insert into this function lines 5-6 (of the main code) and replace lines 4-7 with the following code:
self._subclass_init(self)
Making subclass assigning to the higher level class possible when there are many/unknown quantities of subclasses.
Replace line 6 with the following code:
for subclass_name in list(subclasses.keys()):
setattr(self, subclass_name, subclasses[subclass_name])
Example scenario of where this solution would be useful and where the higher level class name should be impossible to get:
A class, named "a" (class a:) is created. It has subclasses that need to access it (the parent). One subclass is called "x1". In this subclass, the code a.run_func() is run.
Then another class, named "b" is created, derived from class "a" (class b(a):). After that, some code runs b.x1() (calling the sub function "x1" of b, a derived sub-class). This function runs a.run_func(), calling the function "run_func" of class "a", not the function "run_func" of its parent, "b" (as it should), because the function which was defined in class "a" is set to refer to the function of class "a", as that was its parent.
This would cause problems (e.g. if function a.run_func has been deleted) and the only solution without rewriting the code in class a.x1 would be to redefine the sub-class x1 with updated code for all classes derived from class "a" which would obviously be difficult and not worth it.

Do you mean to use inheritance, rather than nesting classes like this? What you're doing doesn't make a heap of sense in Python.
You can access the Outer's some_method by just referencing Outer.some_method within the inner class's methods, but it's not going to work as you expect it will. For example, if you try this:
class Outer(object):
def some_method(self):
# do something
class Inner(object):
def __init__(self):
Outer.some_method()
...you'll get a TypeError when initialising an Inner object, because Outer.some_method expects to receive an Outer instance as its first argument. (In the example above, you're basically trying to call some_method as a class method of Outer.)

Another possibility:
class _Outer (object):
# Define your static methods here, e.g.
#staticmethod
def subclassRef ():
return Outer
class Outer (_Outer):
class Inner (object):
def outer (self):
return _Outer
def doSomething (self):
outer = self.outer ()
# Call your static mehthods.
cls = outer.subclassRef ()
return cls ()

What we can do is pass the self variable of Outer Class inside the Inner Class as Class Argument and Under Outer init initialise the Inner Class with Outer self passed into Inner
class Outer:
def __init__(self):
self.somevalue=91
self.Inner=self.Inner(self)
def SomeMethod(self):
print('This is Something from Outer Class')
class Inner:
def __init__(self,Outer)
self.SomeMethod=Outer.SomeMethod
self.somevalue=Outer.somevalue
def SomeAnotherMethod(self):
print(self.somevalue)
self.SomeMethod()
>>>f=Outer()
>>>f.Inner.SomeAnotherMethod()
91
This is Something from Outer Class
Now After running this function it Works

Expanding on #tsnorri's cogent thinking, that the outer method may be a static method:
class Outer(object):
#staticmethod
def some_static_method(self):
# do something
class Inner(object):
def __init__(self):
self.some_static_method() # <-- this will work later
Inner.some_static_method = some_static_method
Now the line in question should work by the time it is actually called.
The last line in the above code gives the Inner class a static method that's a clone of the Outer static method.
This takes advantage of two Python features, that functions are objects, and scope is textual.
Usually, the local scope references the local names of the (textually) current function.
...or current class in our case. So objects "local" to the definition of the Outer class (Inner and some_static_method) may be referred to directly within that definition.

You may create a class, to decorate inner classes. In this case #inner.
Since this a decorator: Outer.A = inner(Outer.A). Once your code requires Outer.A it will be executed inner.__get__ method, which returns the original class (A) with a new attribute set on it: A.owner = Outer.
A classmethod in class A, in this case def add(cls, y=3), may use new attribute owner at return cls.owner.x + y + 1.
The line setattr(owner, name, self.inner), breaks the descriptor because owner.name => Outer.A => A is no longer an instance of the class inner.
Hope this helps.
class inner:
def __init__(self, inner):
self.inner = inner
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
print('__get__ method executed, only once... ')
name = self.inner.__name__
setattr(self.inner, 'owner', owner)
setattr(owner, name, self.inner) # breaks descriptor
return self.inner #returns Inner
class Outer:
x = 1
#inner
class A:
#classmethod
def add(cls, y=3):
return cls.owner.x + y + 1
print(Outer.A.add(0)) # First time executes inner.__get__ method
print(Outer.A.add(0)) # Second time not necessary.
>> __get__ method executed, only once...
>> 2
>> 2

It can be done by parsing the outer class object into inner class.
class Outer():
def __init__(self,userinput):
self.userinput = userinput
def outer_function(self):
self.a = self.userinput + 2
class Inner():
def inner_function(self):
self.b = self.a + 10
after defining this, it need to run the function
m = Outer(3)
m.outer_function()
print (m.a)
#this will output 5
Now it has the variable of outer class.
and then, it need to run inner class functions.
m.Inner.inner_function(m)
The object m of outer class is parsed into the function of inner class (inside the brackets)
Now, the inner class function is accessing self.a from the outer class.
print (m.b)
#this will output 15

It is too simple:
Input:
class A:
def __init__(self):
pass
def func1(self):
print('class A func1')
class B:
def __init__(self):
a1 = A()
a1.func1()
def func1(self):
print('class B func1')
b = A.B()
b.func1()
Output
class A func1
class B func1

Instantiate an child object directly from a parent object

I have two objects one inherits from the other and the only difference between them is a few attribute fields:
class Parent:
def __init__(self,a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
def methodA(self):
# do something
pass
class Child(Parent):
def __init__(self,c,**kwargs):
self.c = c
super().__init__(**kwargs)
I have an instance of the parent object and I want to find a fast way in python to create an instance of the child object which only has one additional field by using the already existing parent object.
Is there a python way or module that lets you do that easily. IN my real code the parent class has hundreds of fields and it is a bit inefficient to just reassign its value.

The canonical solution is to add a class method to Child that works as a constructor. It takes a Parent instance and returns the Child instance with the proper attributes.
For example:
class Parent:
def __init__(self,a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
class Child(Parent):
def __init__(self,c,**kwargs):
self.c = c
super().__init__(**kwargs)
#classmethod
def from_parent(cls, parent, c):
return cls(a=parent.a, b=parent.b, c=c)
p = Parent(a=1, b=2)
c = Child.from_parent(parent=p, c=3)
print(c.a, c.b, c.c) # output: 1 2 3
I would argue that your Parent class having hundreds of attributes is irrelevant to the answer. Yes, it's tedious having to explicitly write every attribute of the Parent instance in the from_parent method, but that's simply a limitation of having a class with that many attributes anyway. Possibly, a better design choice would be to encapsulate groups of Parent attributes into proper classes, so that only those instances need to be delivered to the Child class upon initialization.

Ok the other suggestions for making a method that takes in parent attributes and creates a child object is ok but adds unnecessary code I think. I made this solution, which I ended up using. It doesnt accept the parent object directly in as an argument but it is more concise I think:
class Parent:
def __init__(self, a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
class Child(Parent):
def __init__(self,c, **kwargs):
self.c = c
super().__init__(**kwargs)
# So if I start with this parent object
parent_args = {"a":23,"b":"iuhsdg"}
parent =Parent(**parent_args)
# I then make child with all the parent attributes plus some more
child_args = {"c":567}
child_args.update(vars(parent))
child = Child(**child_args)

Inheriting a virtual class method - how to call it from base class?

Let B inherit from A. Suppose that some of B's behavior depends on the class attribute cls_x and we want to set up this dependency during construction of B objects. Since it is not a simple operation, we want to wrap it in a class method, which the constructor will call. Example:
class B(A):
cls_x = 'B'
#classmethod
def cm(cls):
return cls.cls_x
def __init__(self):
self.attr = B.cm()
Problem: cm as well as __init__ will always be doing the same things and their behavior must stay the same in each derived class. Thus, we would like to put them both in the base class and not define it in any of the derived classes. The only difference will be the caller of cm - either A or B (or any of B1, B2, each inheriting from A), whatever is being constructed. So what we'd like to have is something like this:
class A:
cls_x = 'A'
#classmethod
def cm(cls):
return cls.cls_x
def __init__(self):
self.attr = ClassOfWhateverIsInstantiated.cm() #how to do this?
class B(A):
cls_x = 'B'
I feel like it's either something very simple I'm missing about Python's inheritance mechanics or the whole issue should be handled entirely differently.
This is different than this question as I do not want to override the class method, but move its implementation to the base class entirely.

Look at it this way: Your question is essentially "How do I get the class of an instance?". The answer to that question is to use the type function:
ClassOfWhateverIsInstantiated = type(self)
But you don't even need to do that, because classmethods can be called directly through an instance:
def __init__(self):
self.attr = self.cm() # just use `self`
This works because classmethods automatically look up the class of the instance for you. From the docs:
[A classmethod] can be called either on the class (such as C.f()) or on an instance
(such as C().f()). The instance is ignored except for its class.

For ClassOfWhateverIsInstantiated you can just use self:
class A:
cls_x = 'A'
#classmethod
def cm(cls):
return cls.cls_x
def __init__(self):
self.attr = self.cm() # 'self' refers to B, if called from B
class B(A):
cls_x = 'B'
a = A()
print(a.cls_x) # = 'A'
print(A.cls_x) # = 'A'
b = B()
print(b.cls_x) # = 'B'
print(B.cls_x) # = 'B'
To understand this, just remember that class B is inheriting the methods of class A. So when __init__() is called during B's instantiation, it's called in the context of class B, to which self refers.

Classes returned from class factory have different IDs

I have a class factory method that is used to instantiate an object. With multiple objects are created through this method, I want to be able to compare the classes of the objects. When using isinstance, the comparison is False, as can be seen in the simple example below. Also running id(a.__class__) and id(b.__class__), gives different ids.
Is there a simple way of achieving this? I know that this does not exactly conform to duck-typing, however this is the easiest solution for the program I am writing.
def factory():
class MyClass(object):
def compare(self, other):
print('Comparison Result: {}'.format(isinstance(other, self.__class__)))
return MyClass()
a = factory()
b = factory()
print(a.compare(b))

The reason is that MyClass is created dynamically every time you run factory. If you print(id(MyClass)) inside factory you get different results:
>>> a = factory()
140465711359728
>>> b = factory()
140465712488632
This is because they are actually different classes, dynamically created and locally scoped at the time of the call.
One way to fix this is to return (or yield) multiple instances:
>>> def factory(n):
class MyClass(object):
def compare(self, other):
print('Comparison Result: {}'.format(isinstance(other, self.__class__)))
for i in range(n):
yield MyClass()
>>> a, b = factory(2)
>>> a.compare(b)
Comparison Result: True
is a possible implementation.
EDIT: If the instances are created dynamically, then the above solution is invalid. One way to do it is to create a superclass outside, then inside the factory function subclass from that superclass:
>>> class MyClass(object):
pass
>>> def factory():
class SubClass(MyClass):
def compare(self, other):
print('Comparison Result: {}'.format(isinstance(other, self.__class__)))
return SubClass()
However, this does not work because they are still different classes. So you need to change your comparison method to check against the first superclass:
isinstance(other, self.__class__.__mro__[1])

If your class definition is inside the factory function, than each instance of the class you create will be an instance of a separate class. That's because the class definition is a statement, that's executed just like any other assignment. The name and contents of the different classes will be the same, but their identities will be distinct.
I don't think there's any simple way to get around that without changing the structure of your code in some way. You've said that your actual factory function is a method of a class, which suggests that you might be able to move the class definition somewhere else so that it can be shared by multiple calls to the factory method. Depending on what information you expect the inner class to use from the outer class, you might define it at class level (so there'd be only one class definition used everywhere), or you could define it in another method, like __init__ (which would create a new inner class for every instance of the outer class).
Here's what that last approach might look like:
class Outer(object):
def __init__(self):
class Inner(object):
def compare(self, other):
print('Comparison Result: {}'.format(isinstance(other, self.__class__)))
self.Inner = Inner
def factory(self):
return self.Inner()
f = Outer()
a = f.factory()
b = f.factory()
print(a.compare(b)) # True
g = Outer() # create another instance of the outer class
c = g.factory()
print(a.compare(c)) # False

It's not entirely clear what you're asking. It seems to me you want a simpler version of the code you already posted. If that's incorrect, this answer is not relevant.
You can create classes dynamically by explicitly constructing a new instance of the type type.
def compare(self, other):
...
def factory():
return type("MyClass", (object,), { 'compare': compare }()
type takes three arguments: the name, the parents, and the predefined slots. So this will behave the same way as your previous code.

Working off the answer from #rassar, and adding some more detail to represent the actual implementation (e.g. the factory-method existing in a parent class), I have come up with a working example below.
From #rassar's answer, I realised that the class is dynamically created each time, and so defining it within the parent object (or even above that), means that it will be the same class definition each time it is called.
class Parent(object):
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self, parent):
self.parent = parent
def compare(self, other):
print('Comparison Result: {}'.format(isinstance(other, self.__class__)))
def factory(self):
return self.MyClass(self)
a = Parent()
b = a.factory()
c = a.factory()
b.compare(c)
print(id(b.__class__))
print(id(c.__class__))

How to keep track of class instances?

Toward the end of a program I'm looking to load a specific variable from all the instances of a class into a dictionary.
For example:
class Foo():
def __init__(self):
self.x = {}
foo1 = Foo()
foo2 = Foo()
...
Let's say the number of instances will vary and I want the x dict from each instance of Foo() loaded into a new dict. How would I do that?
The examples I've seen in SO assume one already has the list of instances.

One way to keep track of instances is with a class variable:
class A(object):
instances = []
def __init__(self, foo):
self.foo = foo
A.instances.append(self)
At the end of the program, you can create your dict like this:
foo_vars = {id(instance): instance.foo for instance in A.instances}
There is only one list:
>>> a = A(1)
>>> b = A(2)
>>> A.instances
[<__main__.A object at 0x1004d44d0>, <__main__.A object at 0x1004d4510>]
>>> id(A.instances)
4299683456
>>> id(a.instances)
4299683456
>>> id(b.instances)
4299683456

#JoelCornett's answer covers the basics perfectly. This is a slightly more complicated version, which might help with a few subtle issues.
If you want to be able to access all the "live" instances of a given class, subclass the following (or include equivalent code in your own base class):
from weakref import WeakSet
class base(object):
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
instance = object.__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
if "instances" not in cls.__dict__:
cls.instances = WeakSet()
cls.instances.add(instance)
return instance
This addresses two possible issues with the simpler implementation that #JoelCornett presented:
Each subclass of base will keep track of its own instances separately. You won't get subclass instances in a parent class's instance list, and one subclass will never stumble over instances of a sibling subclass. This might be undesirable, depending on your use case, but it's probably easier to merge the sets back together than it is to split them apart.
The instances set uses weak references to the class's instances, so if you del or reassign all the other references to an instance elsewhere in your code, the bookkeeping code will not prevent it from being garbage collected. Again, this might not be desirable for some use cases, but it is easy enough to use regular sets (or lists) instead of a weakset if you really want every instance to last forever.
Some handy-dandy test output (with the instances sets always being passed to list only because they don't print out nicely):
>>> b = base()
>>> list(base.instances)
[<__main__.base object at 0x00000000026067F0>]
>>> class foo(base):
... pass
...
>>> f = foo()
>>> list(foo.instances)
[<__main__.foo object at 0x0000000002606898>]
>>> list(base.instances)
[<__main__.base object at 0x00000000026067F0>]
>>> del f
>>> list(foo.instances)
[]

You would probably want to use weak references to your instances. Otherwise the class could likely end up keeping track of instances that were meant to have been deleted. A weakref.WeakSet will automatically remove any dead instances from its set.
One way to keep track of instances is with a class variable:
import weakref
class A(object):
instances = weakref.WeakSet()
def __init__(self, foo):
self.foo = foo
A.instances.add(self)
#classmethod
def get_instances(cls):
return list(A.instances) #Returns list of all current instances
At the end of the program, you can create your dict like this:
foo_vars = {id(instance): instance.foo for instance in A.instances}
There is only one list:
>>> a = A(1)
>>> b = A(2)
>>> A.get_instances()
[<inst.A object at 0x100587290>, <inst.A object at 0x100587250>]
>>> id(A.instances)
4299861712
>>> id(a.instances)
4299861712
>>> id(b.instances)
4299861712
>>> a = A(3) #original a will be dereferenced and replaced with new instance
>>> A.get_instances()
[<inst.A object at 0x100587290>, <inst.A object at 0x1005872d0>]

You can also solve this problem using a metaclass:
When a class is created (__init__ method of metaclass), add a new instance registry
When a new instance of this class is created (__call__ method of metaclass), add it to the instance registry.
The advantage of this approach is that each class has a registry - even if no instance exists. In contrast, when overriding __new__ (as in Blckknght's answer), the registry is added when the first instance is created.
class MetaInstanceRegistry(type):
"""Metaclass providing an instance registry"""
def __init__(cls, name, bases, attrs):
# Create class
super(MetaInstanceRegistry, cls).__init__(name, bases, attrs)
# Initialize fresh instance storage
cls._instances = weakref.WeakSet()
def __call__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
# Create instance (calls __init__ and __new__ methods)
inst = super(MetaInstanceRegistry, cls).__call__(*args, **kwargs)
# Store weak reference to instance. WeakSet will automatically remove
# references to objects that have been garbage collected
cls._instances.add(inst)
return inst
def _get_instances(cls, recursive=False):
"""Get all instances of this class in the registry. If recursive=True
search subclasses recursively"""
instances = list(cls._instances)
if recursive:
for Child in cls.__subclasses__():
instances += Child._get_instances(recursive=recursive)
# Remove duplicates from multiple inheritance.
return list(set(instances))
Usage: Create a registry and subclass it.
class Registry(object):
__metaclass__ = MetaInstanceRegistry
class Base(Registry):
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
class A(Base):
pass
class B(Base):
pass
class C(B):
pass
a = A(x=1)
a2 = A(2)
b = B(x=3)
c = C(4)
for cls in [Base, A, B, C]:
print cls.__name__
print cls._get_instances()
print cls._get_instances(recursive=True)
print
del c
print C._get_instances()
If using abstract base classes from the abc module, just subclass abc.ABCMeta to avoid metaclass conflicts:
from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod
class ABCMetaInstanceRegistry(MetaInstanceRegistry, ABCMeta):
pass
class ABCRegistry(object):
__metaclass__ = ABCMetaInstanceRegistry
class ABCBase(ABCRegistry):
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
#abstractmethod
def f(self):
pass
class E(ABCBase):
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
def f(self):
return self.x
e = E(x=5)
print E._get_instances()

Another option for quick low-level hacks and debugging is to filter the list of objects returned by gc.get_objects() and generate the dictionary on the fly that way. In CPython that function will return you a (generally huge) list of everything the garbage collector knows about, so it will definitely contain all of the instances of any particular user-defined class.
Note that this is digging a bit into the internals of the interpreter, so it may or may not work (or work well) with the likes of Jython, PyPy, IronPython, etc. I haven't checked. It's also likely to be really slow regardless. Use with caution/YMMV/etc.
However, I imagine that some people running into this question might eventually want to do this sort of thing as a one-off to figure out what's going on with the runtime state of some slice of code that's behaving strangely. This method has the benefit of not affecting the instances or their construction at all, which might be useful if the code in question is coming out of a third-party library or something.

Here's a similar approach to Blckknght's, which works with subclasses as well. Thought this might be of interest, if someone ends up here. One difference, if B is a subclass of A, and b is an instance of B, b will appear in both A.instances and B.instances. As stated by Blckknght, this depends on the use case.
from weakref import WeakSet
class RegisterInstancesMixin:
instances = WeakSet()
def __new__(cls, *args, **kargs):
o = object.__new__(cls, *args, **kargs)
cls._register_instance(o)
return o
#classmethod
def print_instances(cls):
for instance in cls.instances:
print(instance)
#classmethod
def _register_instance(cls, instance):
cls.instances.add(instance)
for b in cls.__bases__:
if issubclass(b, RegisterInstancesMixin):
b._register_instance(instance)
def __init_subclass__(cls):
cls.instances = WeakSet()
class Animal(RegisterInstancesMixin):
pass
class Mammal(Animal):
pass
class Human(Mammal):
pass
class Dog(Mammal):
pass
alice = Human()
bob = Human()
cannelle = Dog()
Animal.print_instances()
Mammal.print_instances()
Human.print_instances()
Animal.print_instances() will print three objects, whereas Human.print_instances() will print two.

Using the answer from #Joel Cornett I've come up with the following, which seems to work. i.e. i'm able to total up object variables.
import os
os.system("clear")
class Foo():
instances = []
def __init__(self):
Foo.instances.append(self)
self.x = 5
class Bar():
def __init__(self):
pass
def testy(self):
self.foo1 = Foo()
self.foo2 = Foo()
self.foo3 = Foo()
foo = Foo()
print Foo.instances
bar = Bar()
bar.testy()
print Foo.instances
x_tot = 0
for inst in Foo.instances:
x_tot += inst.x
print x_tot
output:
[<__main__.Foo instance at 0x108e334d0>]
[<__main__.Foo instance at 0x108e334d0>, <__main__.Foo instance at 0x108e33560>, <__main__.Foo instance at 0x108e335a8>, <__main__.Foo instance at 0x108e335f0>]
5
10
15
20

(For Python)
I have found a way to record the class instances via the "dataclass" decorator while defining a class. Define a class attribute 'instances' (or any other name) as a list of the instances you want to record. Append that list with the 'dict' form of created objects via the dunder method __dict__. Thus, the class attribute 'instances' will record instances in the dict form, which you want.
For example,
from dataclasses import dataclass
#dataclass
class player:
instances=[]
def __init__(self,name,rank):
self.name=name
self.rank=rank
self.instances.append(self.__dict__)