Related
In Python, I can create a class method using the #classmethod decorator:
>>> class C:
... #classmethod
... def f(cls):
... print(f'f called with cls={cls}')
...
>>> C.f()
f called with cls=<class '__main__.C'>
Alternatively, I can use a normal (instance) method on a metaclass:
>>> class M(type):
... def f(cls):
... print(f'f called with cls={cls}')
...
>>> class C(metaclass=M):
... pass
...
>>> C.f()
f called with cls=<class '__main__.C'>
As shown by the output of C.f(), these two approaches provide similar functionality.
What are the differences between using #classmethod and using a normal method on a metaclass?
As classes are instances of a metaclass, it is not unexpected that an "instance method" on the metaclass will behave like a classmethod.
However, yes, there are differences - and some of them are more than semantic:
The most important difference is that a method in the metaclass is not "visible" from a class instance. That happens because the attribute lookup in Python (in a simplified way - descriptors may take precedence) search for an attribute in the instance - if it is not present in the instance, Python then looks in that instance's class, and then the search continues on the superclasses of the class, but not on the classes of the class. The Python stdlib make use of this feature in the abc.ABCMeta.register method.
That feature can be used for good, as methods related with the class themselves are free to be re-used as instance attributes without any conflict (but a method would still conflict).
Another difference, though obvious, is that a method declared in the metaclass can be available in several classes, not otherwise related - if you have different class hierarchies, not related at all in what they deal with, but want some common functionality for all classes, you'd have to come up with a mixin class, that would have to be included as base in both hierarchies (say for including all classes in an application registry). (NB. the mixin may sometimes be a better call than a metaclass)
A classmethod is a specialized "classmethod" object, while a method in the metaclass is an ordinary function.
So, it happens that the mechanism that classmethods use is the "descriptor protocol". While normal functions feature a __get__ method that will insert the self argument when they are retrieved from an instance, and leave that argument empty when retrieved from a class, a classmethod object have a different __get__, that will insert the class itself (the "owner") as the first parameter in both situations.
This makes no practical differences most of the time, but if you want access to the method as a function, for purposes of adding dynamically adding decorator to it, or any other, for a method in the metaclass meta.method retrieves the function, ready to be used, while you have to use cls.my_classmethod.__func__ to retrieve it from a classmethod (and then you have to create another classmethod object and assign it back, if you do some wrapping).
Basically, these are the 2 examples:
class M1(type):
def clsmethod1(cls):
pass
class CLS1(metaclass=M1):
pass
def runtime_wrap(cls, method_name, wrapper):
mcls = type(cls)
setattr(mcls, method_name, wrapper(getatttr(mcls, method_name)))
def wrapper(classmethod):
def new_method(cls):
print("wrapper called")
return classmethod(cls)
return new_method
runtime_wrap(cls1, "clsmethod1", wrapper)
class CLS2:
#classmethod
def classmethod2(cls):
pass
def runtime_wrap2(cls, method_name, wrapper):
setattr(cls, method_name, classmethod(
wrapper(getatttr(cls, method_name).__func__)
)
)
runtime_wrap2(cls1, "clsmethod1", wrapper)
In other words: apart from the important difference that a method defined in the metaclass is visible from the instance and a classmethod object do not, the other differences, at runtime will seem obscure and meaningless - but that happens because the language does not need to go out of its way with special rules for classmethods: Both ways of declaring a classmethod are possible, as a consequence from the language design - one, for the fact that a class is itself an object, and another, as a possibility among many, of the use of the descriptor protocol which allows one to specialize attribute access in an instance and in a class:
The classmethod builtin is defined in native code, but it could just be coded in pure python and would work in the exact same way. The 5 line class bellow can be used as a classmethod decorator with no runtime differences to the built-in #classmethod" at all (though distinguishable through introspection such as calls toisinstance, and evenrepr` of course):
class myclassmethod:
def __init__(self, func):
self.__func__ = func
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
return lambda *args, **kw: self.__func__(owner, *args, **kw)
And, beyond methods, it is interesting to keep in mind that specialized attributes such as a #property on the metaclass will work as specialized class attributes, just the same, with no surprising behavior at all.
When you phrase it like you did in the question, the #classmethod and metaclasses may look similar but they have rather different purposes. The class that is injected in the #classmethod's argument is usually used for constructing an instance (i.e. an alternative constructor). On the other hand, the metaclasses are usually used to modify the class itself (e.g. like what Django does with its models DSL).
That is not to say that you can't modify the class inside a classmethod. But then the question becomes why didn't you define the class in the way you want to modify it in the first place? If not, it might suggest a refactor to use multiple classes.
Let's expand the first example a bit.
class C:
#classmethod
def f(cls):
print(f'f called with cls={cls}')
Borrowing from the Python docs, the above will expand to something like the following:
class ClassMethod(object):
"Emulate PyClassMethod_Type() in Objects/funcobject.c"
def __init__(self, f):
self.f = f
def __get__(self, obj, klass=None):
if klass is None:
klass = type(obj)
def newfunc(*args):
return self.f(klass, *args)
return newfunc
class C:
def f(cls):
print(f'f called with cls={cls}')
f = ClassMethod(f)
Note how __get__ can take either an instance or the class (or both), and thus you can do both C.f and C().f. This is unlike the metaclass example you give which will throw an AttributeError for C().f.
Moreover, in the metaclass example, f does not exist in C.__dict__. When looking up the attribute f with C.f, the interpreter looks at C.__dict__ and then after failing to find, looks at type(C).__dict__ (which is M.__dict__). This may matter if you want the flexibility to override f in C, although I doubt this will ever be of practical use.
In your example, the difference would be in some other classes that will have M set as their metaclass.
class M(type):
def f(cls):
pass
class C(metaclass=M):
pass
class C2(metaclass=M):
pass
C.f()
C2.f()
class M(type):
pass
class C(metaclass=M):
#classmethod
def f(cls):
pass
class C2(metaclass=M):
pass
C.f()
# C2 does not have 'f'
Here is more on metaclasses
What are some (concrete) use-cases for metaclasses?
Both #classmethod and Metaclass are different.
Everything in python is an object. Every thing means every thing.
What is Metaclass ?
As said every thing is an object. Classes are also objects in fact classes are instances of other mysterious objects formally called as meta-classes. Default metaclass in python is "type" if not specified
By default all classes defined are instances of type.
Classes are instances of Meta-Classes
Few important points are to understand metioned behaviour
As classes are instances of meta classes.
Like every instantiated object, like objects(instances) get their attributes from class. Class will get it's attributes from Meta-Class
Consider Following Code
class Meta(type):
def foo(self):
print(f'foo is called self={self}')
print('{} is instance of {}: {}'.format(self, Meta, isinstance(self, Meta)))
class C(metaclass=Meta):
pass
C.foo()
Where,
class C is instance of class Meta
"class C" is class object which is instance of "class Meta"
Like any other object(instance) "class C" has access it's attributes/methods defined in it's class "class Meta"
So, decoding "C.foo()" . "C" is instance of "Meta" and "foo" is method calling through instance of "Meta" which is "C".
First argument of method "foo" is reference to instance not class unlike "classmethod"
We can verify as if "class C" is instance of "Class Meta
isinstance(C, Meta)
What is classmethod?
Python methods are said to be bound. As python imposes the restriction that method has to be invoked with instance only.
Sometimes we might want to invoke methods directly through class without any instance (much like static members in java) with out having to create any instance.By default instance is required to call method. As a workaround python provides built-in function classmethod to bind given method to class instead of instance.
As class methods are bound to class. It takes at least one argument which is reference to class itself instead of instance (self)
if built-in function/decorator classmethod is used. First argument
will be reference to class instead of instance
class ClassMethodDemo:
#classmethod
def foo(cls):
print(f'cls is ClassMethodDemo: {cls is ClassMethodDemo}')
As we have used "classmethod" we call method "foo" without creating any instance as follows
ClassMethodDemo.foo()
Above method call will return True. Since first argument cls is indeed reference to "ClassMethodDemo"
Summary:
Classmethod's receive first argument which is "a reference to class(traditionally referred as cls) itself"
Methods of meta-classes are not classmethods. Methods of Meta-classes receive first argument which is "a reference to instance(traditionally referred as self) not class"
I wanted to access the class on which method is to be defined. This can be used, for example, to create alias for methods with decorator. This particular case could be implemented without using decorator (alias = original_name), but I would like to use decorator, primarily so because the aliasing will be visible along side the method definition at the top, useful when the method definition is long.
def method_alias(*aliases):
def aliased(m):
class_of_m = ??? # GET class of this method
for alias in aliases:
setattr(class_of_m, alias, m)
return m
return aliased
class Test():
#method_alias('check', 'examine')
def test():
print('I am implemented with name "test"')
Later, I found here that the above could be implemented by using two decorators (first store the aliases as method attributes, later when the class is already created, add the attributes to class). Can it be done without decorating the class, i.e. only decorating the method? This requires getting access to the class name in the decorator.
The short answer is no. The contents of the class body are evaluated before the class object is created, i.e. the function test is created and passed to the decorator without class Test already existing. The decorator is therefore unable to obtain a reference to it.
To solve the problem of method aliasing, I reckon three approaches:
Using a class decorator as described by your link.
Using a metaclass, which lets you modifies the class' __dict__ before the class object is created. (Implementing a metaclass class is acutally overriding the default constructor for class objects, see here. Also the metaclass usage syntax has changed in Python 3.)
Creating the aliases in the __init__ method for each instance of Test.
The first approach is probably the most straightforward. I wrote another example. It basically does the same as your link, but is more stripped down to make it a bit clearer.
def alias(*aliases):
def decorator(f):
f.aliases = set(aliases)
return f
return decorator
def apply_aliases(cls):
for name, elem in list(cls.__dict__.items()):
if not hasattr(elem, 'aliases'):
continue
for alias in elem.aliases:
setattr(cls, alias, elem)
return cls
#apply_aliases
class Test(object):
#alias('check', 'examine')
def test(self):
print('I am implemented with name "test"')
Test().test()
Test().check()
Test().examine()
I'm not really sure how best to explain what I want, so I'll just show some code:
class Stuffclass():
def add(self, x, y):
return x + y
def subtract(self, x, y):
return x - y
# imagine that there are 20-30 other methods in here (lol)
class MyClass:
def __init__(self):
self.st = Stuffclass()
def doSomething(self):
return self.st.add(1, 2)
m = MyClass()
m.doSomething() # will print 3
# Now, what I want to be able to do is:
print m.add(2, 3) # directly access the "add" method of MyClass.st
print m.subtract(10, 5) # directly access the "subtract" method of MyClass.st
m.SomeMethod() # execute function MyClass.st.SomeMethod
I know I could do something like this:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self):
self.st = Stuffclass()
self.add = self.st.add
self.subtract = self.st.subtract
...but this requires manually assigning all possible attributes.
I'm writing all the classes so I can guarantee no name collisions.
Making MyClass a subclass of Stuffclass won't work, because I actually am using this in a plugin-based application, where MyClass loads other code dynamically using import. This means MyClass can't subclass from the plugin, because the plugin could be anything that follows my API.
Advice please?
I believe that writing a getattr function for your class will let you do what you want.
Called when an attribute lookup has not found the attribute in the usual places (i.e. it is not an instance attribute nor is it found in the class tree for self). name is the attribute name. This method should return the (computed) attribute value or raise an AttributeError exception
So something as simple as:
def __getattr__(self, name):
if hasattr(self.st, name):
return getattr(self.st, name)
else:
raise AttributeError
should do roughly what you're after.
But, having answered (I think) the question you asked, I'm going to move on to the question I think you should have asked.
I actually am using this in a plugin-based application, where MyClass loads other code dynamically using import. This means MyClass can't subclass from the plugin, because the plugin could be anything that follows my API
I can see why MyClass can't be a subclass of StuffClass; but couldn't StuffClass be a subclass of MyClass? If you defined the inheritance that way, you'd have a guarantee what StuffClass implements all the basic stuff in MyClass, and also that your instances of StuffClass have all the extra methods defined in StuffClass.
From your mention that the plugins need to "follows my API", I'm assuming that might be a case where you need to ensure that the plugins implement a set of methods in order to conform with the API; but since the implementation of the methods is going to depend on the specifics of the plugin, you can't provide those functions in MyClass. In that case, it sounds as though defining an Abstract Base Class that your plugins are required to inherit from might be useful for you.
Use __getattr__ to delegate the calls to Stuffclass's instance:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self):
self.st = Stuffclass()
def __getattr__(self,attr):
return getattr(self.st,attr)
Demo:
>>> from so import *
>>> m = MyClass()
>>> m.add(1,2)
3
>>> m.subtract(100,2)
98
When you decorate a method, it is not bound yet to the class, and therefor doesn't have the im_class attribute yet. I looking for a way to get the information about the class inside the decorator. I tried this:
import types
def decorator(method):
def set_signal(self, name, value):
print name
if name == 'im_class':
print "I got the class"
method.__setattr__ = types.MethodType(set_signal, method)
return method
class Test(object):
#decorator
def bar(self, foo):
print foo
But it doesn't print anything.
I can imagine doing this:
class Test(object):
#decorator(klass=Test)
def bar(self, foo):
print foo
But if I can avoid it, it would make my day.
__setattr__ is only called on explicit object.attribute = assignments; building a class does not use attribute assignment but builds a dictionary (Test.__dict__) instead.
To access the class you have a few different options though:
Use a class decorator instead; it'll be passed the completed class after building it, you could decorate individual methods on that class by replacing them (decorated) in the class. You could use a combination of a function decorator and a class decorator to mark which methods are to be decorated:
def methoddecoratormarker(func):
func._decorate_me = True
return func
def realmethoddecorator(func):
# do something with func.
# Note: it is still an unbound function here, not a method!
return func
def classdecorator(klass):
for name, item in klass.__dict__.iteritems():
if getattr(item, '_decorate_me', False):
klass.__dict__[name] = realmethoddecorator(item)
You could use a metaclass instead of a class decorator to achieve the same, of course.
Cheat, and use sys._getframe() to retrieve the class from the calling frame:
import sys
def methoddecorator(func):
callingframe = sys._getframe(1)
classname = callingframe.f_code.co_name
Note that all you can retrieve is the name of the class; the class itself is still being built at this time. You can add items to callingframe.f_locals (a mapping) and they'll be made part of the new class object.
Access self whenever the method is called. self is a reference to the instance after all, and self.__class__ is going to be, at the very least, a sub-class of the original class the function was defined in.
My strict answer would be: It's not possible, because the class does not yet exist when the decorator is executed.
The longer answer would depend on your very exact requirements. As I wrote, you cannot access the class if it does not yet exists. One solution would be, to mark the decorated method to be "transformed" later. Then use a metaclass or class decorator to apply your modifications after the class has been created.
Another option involves some magic. Look for the implementation of the implements method in zope.interfaces. It has some access to the information about the class which is just been parsed. Don't know if it will be enough for your use case.
You might want to take a look at descriptors. They let you implement a __get__ that is used when an attribute is accessed, and can return different things depending on the object and its type.
Use method decorators to add some marker attributes to the interesting methods, and use a metaclass which iterates over the methods, finds the marker attributes, and does the logic. The metaclass code is run when the class is created, so it has a reference to the newly created class.
class MyMeta(object):
def __new__(...):
...
cls = ...
... iterate over dir(cls), find methods having .is_decorated, act on them
return cls
def decorator(f):
f.is_decorated = True
return f
class MyBase(object):
__metaclass__ = MyMeta
class MyClass(MyBase):
#decorator
def bar(self, foo):
print foo
If you worry about that the programmer of MyClass forgets to use MyBase, you can forcibly set the metaclass in decorator, by exampining the globals dicitionary of the caller stack frame (sys._getframe()).
This article has a snippet showing usage of __bases__ to dynamically change the inheritance hierarchy of some Python code, by adding a class to an existing classes collection of classes from which it inherits. Ok, that's hard to read, code is probably clearer:
class Friendly:
def hello(self):
print 'Hello'
class Person: pass
p = Person()
Person.__bases__ = (Friendly,)
p.hello() # prints "Hello"
That is, Person doesn't inherit from Friendly at the source level, but rather this inheritance relation is added dynamically at runtime by modification of the __bases__attribute of the Person class. However, if you change Friendly and Person to be new style classes (by inheriting from object), you get the following error:
TypeError: __bases__ assignment: 'Friendly' deallocator differs from 'object'
A bit of Googling on this seems to indicate some incompatibilities between new-style and old style classes in regards to changing the inheritance hierarchy at runtime. Specifically: "New-style class objects don't support assignment to their bases attribute".
My question, is it possible to make the above Friendly/Person example work using new-style classes in Python 2.7+, possibly by use of the __mro__ attribute?
Disclaimer: I fully realise that this is obscure code. I fully realize that in real production code tricks like this tend to border on unreadable, this is purely a thought experiment, and for funzies to learn something about how Python deals with issues related to multiple inheritance.
Ok, again, this is not something you should normally do, this is for informational purposes only.
Where Python looks for a method on an instance object is determined by the __mro__ attribute of the class which defines that object (the M ethod R esolution O rder attribute). Thus, if we could modify the __mro__ of Person, we'd get the desired behaviour. Something like:
setattr(Person, '__mro__', (Person, Friendly, object))
The problem is that __mro__ is a readonly attribute, and thus setattr won't work. Maybe if you're a Python guru there's a way around that, but clearly I fall short of guru status as I cannot think of one.
A possible workaround is to simply redefine the class:
def modify_Person_to_be_friendly():
# so that we're modifying the global identifier 'Person'
global Person
# now just redefine the class using type(), specifying that the new
# class should inherit from Friendly and have all attributes from
# our old Person class
Person = type('Person', (Friendly,), dict(Person.__dict__))
def main():
modify_Person_to_be_friendly()
p = Person()
p.hello() # works!
What this doesn't do is modify any previously created Person instances to have the hello() method. For example (just modifying main()):
def main():
oldperson = Person()
ModifyPersonToBeFriendly()
p = Person()
p.hello()
# works! But:
oldperson.hello()
# does not
If the details of the type call aren't clear, then read e-satis' excellent answer on 'What is a metaclass in Python?'.
I've been struggling with this too, and was intrigued by your solution, but Python 3 takes it away from us:
AttributeError: attribute '__dict__' of 'type' objects is not writable
I actually have a legitimate need for a decorator that replaces the (single) superclass of the decorated class. It would require too lengthy a description to include here (I tried, but couldn't get it to a reasonably length and limited complexity -- it came up in the context of the use by many Python applications of an Python-based enterprise server where different applications needed slightly different variations of some of the code.)
The discussion on this page and others like it provided hints that the problem of assigning to __bases__ only occurs for classes with no superclass defined (i.e., whose only superclass is object). I was able to solve this problem (for both Python 2.7 and 3.2) by defining the classes whose superclass I needed to replace as being subclasses of a trivial class:
## T is used so that the other classes are not direct subclasses of object,
## since classes whose base is object don't allow assignment to their __bases__ attribute.
class T: pass
class A(T):
def __init__(self):
print('Creating instance of {}'.format(self.__class__.__name__))
## ordinary inheritance
class B(A): pass
## dynamically specified inheritance
class C(T): pass
A() # -> Creating instance of A
B() # -> Creating instance of B
C.__bases__ = (A,)
C() # -> Creating instance of C
## attempt at dynamically specified inheritance starting with a direct subclass
## of object doesn't work
class D: pass
D.__bases__ = (A,)
D()
## Result is:
## TypeError: __bases__ assignment: 'A' deallocator differs from 'object'
I can not vouch for the consequences, but that this code does what you want at py2.7.2.
class Friendly(object):
def hello(self):
print 'Hello'
class Person(object): pass
# we can't change the original classes, so we replace them
class newFriendly: pass
newFriendly.__dict__ = dict(Friendly.__dict__)
Friendly = newFriendly
class newPerson: pass
newPerson.__dict__ = dict(Person.__dict__)
Person = newPerson
p = Person()
Person.__bases__ = (Friendly,)
p.hello() # prints "Hello"
We know that this is possible. Cool. But we'll never use it!
Right of the bat, all the caveats of messing with class hierarchy dynamically are in effect.
But if it has to be done then, apparently, there is a hack that get's around the "deallocator differs from 'object" issue when modifying the __bases__ attribute for the new style classes.
You can define a class object
class Object(object): pass
Which derives a class from the built-in metaclass type.
That's it, now your new style classes can modify the __bases__ without any problem.
In my tests this actually worked very well as all existing (before changing the inheritance) instances of it and its derived classes felt the effect of the change including their mro getting updated.
I needed a solution for this which:
Works with both Python 2 (>= 2.7) and Python 3 (>= 3.2).
Lets the class bases be changed after dynamically importing a dependency.
Lets the class bases be changed from unit test code.
Works with types that have a custom metaclass.
Still allows unittest.mock.patch to function as expected.
Here's what I came up with:
def ensure_class_bases_begin_with(namespace, class_name, base_class):
""" Ensure the named class's bases start with the base class.
:param namespace: The namespace containing the class name.
:param class_name: The name of the class to alter.
:param base_class: The type to be the first base class for the
newly created type.
:return: ``None``.
Call this function after ensuring `base_class` is
available, before using the class named by `class_name`.
"""
existing_class = namespace[class_name]
assert isinstance(existing_class, type)
bases = list(existing_class.__bases__)
if base_class is bases[0]:
# Already bound to a type with the right bases.
return
bases.insert(0, base_class)
new_class_namespace = existing_class.__dict__.copy()
# Type creation will assign the correct ‘__dict__’ attribute.
del new_class_namespace['__dict__']
metaclass = existing_class.__metaclass__
new_class = metaclass(class_name, tuple(bases), new_class_namespace)
namespace[class_name] = new_class
Used like this within the application:
# foo.py
# Type `Bar` is not available at first, so can't inherit from it yet.
class Foo(object):
__metaclass__ = type
def __init__(self):
self.frob = "spam"
def __unicode__(self): return "Foo"
# … later …
import bar
ensure_class_bases_begin_with(
namespace=globals(),
class_name=str('Foo'), # `str` type differs on Python 2 vs. 3.
base_class=bar.Bar)
Use like this from within unit test code:
# test_foo.py
""" Unit test for `foo` module. """
import unittest
import mock
import foo
import bar
ensure_class_bases_begin_with(
namespace=foo.__dict__,
class_name=str('Foo'), # `str` type differs on Python 2 vs. 3.
base_class=bar.Bar)
class Foo_TestCase(unittest.TestCase):
""" Test cases for `Foo` class. """
def setUp(self):
patcher_unicode = mock.patch.object(
foo.Foo, '__unicode__')
patcher_unicode.start()
self.addCleanup(patcher_unicode.stop)
self.test_instance = foo.Foo()
patcher_frob = mock.patch.object(
self.test_instance, 'frob')
patcher_frob.start()
self.addCleanup(patcher_frob.stop)
def test_instantiate(self):
""" Should create an instance of `Foo`. """
instance = foo.Foo()
The above answers are good if you need to change an existing class at runtime. However, if you are just looking to create a new class that inherits by some other class, there is a much cleaner solution. I got this idea from https://stackoverflow.com/a/21060094/3533440, but I think the example below better illustrates a legitimate use case.
def make_default(Map, default_default=None):
"""Returns a class which behaves identically to the given
Map class, except it gives a default value for unknown keys."""
class DefaultMap(Map):
def __init__(self, default=default_default, **kwargs):
self._default = default
super().__init__(**kwargs)
def __missing__(self, key):
return self._default
return DefaultMap
DefaultDict = make_default(dict, default_default='wug')
d = DefaultDict(a=1, b=2)
assert d['a'] is 1
assert d['b'] is 2
assert d['c'] is 'wug'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this strategy seems very readable to me, and I would use it in production code. This is very similar to functors in OCaml.
This method isn't technically inheriting during runtime, since __mro__ can't be changed. But what I'm doing here is using __getattr__ to be able to access any attributes or methods from a certain class. (Read comments in order of numbers placed before the comments, it makes more sense)
class Sub:
def __init__(self, f, cls):
self.f = f
self.cls = cls
# 6) this method will pass the self parameter
# (which is the original class object we passed)
# and then it will fill in the rest of the arguments
# using *args and **kwargs
def __call__(self, *args, **kwargs):
# 7) the multiple try / except statements
# are for making sure if an attribute was
# accessed instead of a function, the __call__
# method will just return the attribute
try:
return self.f(self.cls, *args, **kwargs)
except TypeError:
try:
return self.f(*args, **kwargs)
except TypeError:
return self.f
# 1) our base class
class S:
def __init__(self, func):
self.cls = func
def __getattr__(self, item):
# 5) we are wrapping the attribute we get in the Sub class
# so we can implement the __call__ method there
# to be able to pass the parameters in the correct order
return Sub(getattr(self.cls, item), self.cls)
# 2) class we want to inherit from
class L:
def run(self, s):
print("run" + s)
# 3) we create an instance of our base class
# and then pass an instance (or just the class object)
# as a parameter to this instance
s = S(L) # 4) in this case, I'm using the class object
s.run("1")
So this sort of substitution and redirection will simulate the inheritance of the class we wanted to inherit from. And it even works with attributes or methods that don't take any parameters.