Develop Reference

Should I subclass list or create class with list as attribute?

I need a container that can collect a number of objects and provides some reporting functionality on the container's elements. Essentially, I'd like to be able to do:
magiclistobject = MagicList()
magiclistobject.report() ### generates all my needed info about the list content
So I thought of subclassing the normal list and adding a report() method. That way, I get to use all the built-in list functionality.
class SubClassedList(list):
def __init__(self):
list.__init__(self)
def report(self): # forgive the silly example
if 999 in self:
print "999 Alert!"
Instead, I could also create my own class that has a magiclist attribute but I would then have to create new methods for appending, extending, etc., if I want to get to the list using:
magiclistobject.append() # instead of magiclistobject.list.append()
I would need something like this (which seems redundant):
class MagicList():
def __init__(self):
self.list = []
def append(self,element):
self.list.append(element)
def extend(self,element):
self.list.extend(element)
# more list functionality as needed...
def report(self):
if 999 in self.list:
print "999 Alert!"
I thought that subclassing the list would be a no-brainer. But this post here makes it sounds like a no-no. Why?

One reason why extending list might be bad is since it ties together your 'MagicReport' object too closely to the list. For example, a Python list supports the following methods:
append
count
extend
index
insert
pop
remove
reverse
sort
It also contains a whole host of other operations (adding, comparisons using < and >, slicing, etc).
Are all of those operations things that your 'MagicReport' object actually wants to support? For example, the following is legal Python:
b = [1, 2]
b *= 3
print b # [1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2]
This is a pretty contrived example, but if you inherit from 'list', your 'MagicReport' object will do exactly the same thing if somebody inadvertently does something like this.
As another example, what if you try slicing your MagicReport object?
m = MagicReport()
# Add stuff to m
slice = m[2:3]
print type(slice)
You'd probably expect the slice to be another MagicReport object, but it's actually a list. You'd need to override __getslice__ in order to avoid surprising behavior, which is a bit of a pain.
It also makes it harder for you to change the implementation of your MagicReport object. If you end up needing to do more sophisticated analysis, it often helps to be able to change the underlying data structure into something more suited for the problem.
If you subclass list, you could get around this problem by just providing new append, extend, etc methods so that you don't change the interface, but you won't have any clear way of determining which of the list methods are actually being used unless you read through the entire codebase. However, if you use composition and just have a list as a field and create methods for the operations you support, you know exactly what needs to be changed.
I actually ran into a scenario very similar to your at work recently. I had an object which contained a collection of 'things' which I first internally represented as a list. As the requirements of the project changed, I ended up changing the object to internally use a dict, a custom collections object, then finally an OrderedDict in rapid succession. At least in my experience, composition makes it much easier to change how something is implemented as opposed to inheritance.
That being said, I think extending list might be ok in scenarios where your 'MagicReport' object is legitimately a list in all but name. If you do want to use MagicReport as a list in every single way, and don't plan on changing its implementation, then it just might be more convenient to subclass list and just be done with it.
Though in that case, it might be better to just use a list and write a 'report' function -- I can't imagine you needing to report the contents of the list more than once, and creating a custom object with a custom method just for that purpose might be overkill (though this obviously depends on what exactly you're trying to do)

As a general rule, whenever you ask yourself "should I inherit or have a member of that type", choose not to inherit. This rule of thumb is known as "favour composition over inheritance".
The reason why this is so is: composition is appropriate where you want to use features of another class; inheritance is appropriate if other code needs to use the features of the other class with the class you are creating.

function of a function (property) python

I have a Python class with functions and properties like this:
#property
def xcoords(self):
' Returns numpy array. '
try:
return self.x_coords
except:
self.x_coords = self._read_coords('x')
return self.x_coords
def _read_coords(self, type):
# read lots of stuff from big file
return array
This allows me to do this: data.xcoords, nice and simple.
I want to keep this as it is, however I want to define functions which allow me to do this:
data.xcoords.mm
data.xcoords.in
How do I do it? I also want these function to work for other properties of the class such as data.zcoords.mm.

If you really want xcoords to return a numpy array, then people may not expect the value of xcoords to have mm and in_ methods. You should think about whether mm and in_ are really properties of the arrays themselves, or if they are properties of the class you're defining. In the latter case, I would recommend against subclassing ndarray -- just define them as methods of the containing class.
On the other hand, if these are definitely properties of the thing returned by xcoords, then subclassing ndarray is a reasonable approach. Be sure to get it right by defining __new__ and __array_finalize__ as discussed in the docs.
To decide whether you should subclass ndarray, you might consider whether you can see yourself reusing this class elsewhere in your program. (You don't actually have to use it elsewhere, right now -- you just have to be able to see yourself reusing it at some point.) If you can't, then these are probably properties of the containing class. The line of reasoning here is that -- thinking in terms of functions -- if you have a short function foo and a short function bar, and know you will never call them any other way than foo(bar(x)), you might be better off writing foo_bar instead. The same logic applies to classes.
Finally, as larsmans pointed out, in is a keyword in python, and so isn't available for use in this case (which is why I used in_ above).

GetAttr Function Problems (Python 3)

I have the following in a Python script:
setattr(stringRESULTS, "b", b)
Which gives me the following error:
AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'b'
Can any-one telling me what the problem is here?

Don't do this. To quote the inestimable Greg Hewgill,
"If you ever find yourself using quoted names to refer to variables,
there's usually a better way to do whatever you're trying to do."
[Here you're one level up and using a string variable for the name, but it's the same underlying issue.] Or as S. Lott followed up with in the same thread:
"90% of the time, you should be using a dictionary. The other 10% of
the time, you need to stop what you're doing entirely."
If you're using the contents of stringRESULTS as a pointer to some object fred which you want to setattr, then these objects you want to target must already exist somewhere, and a dictionary is the natural data structure to store them. In fact, depending on your use case, you might be able to use dictionary key/value pairs instead of attributes in the first place.
IOW, my version of what (I'm guessing) you're trying to do would probably look like
d[stringRESULTS].b = b
or
d[stringRESULTS]["b"] = b
depending on whether I wanted/needed to work with an object instance or a dictionary would suffice.
(P.S. relatively few people subscribe to the python-3.x tag. You'll usually get more attention by adding the bare 'python' tag as well.)

Since str is a low-level primitive type, you can't really set any arbitrary attribute on it. You probably need either a dict or a subclass of str:
class StringResult(str):
pass
which should behave as you expect:
my_string_result = StringResult("spam_and_eggs")
my_string_result.b = b
EDIT:
If you're trying to do what DSM suggests, ie. modify a property on a variable that has the same name as the value of the stringRESULTS variable then this should do the trick:
locals()[stringRESULTS].b = b
Please note that this is an extremely dangerous operation and can wreak all kinds of havoc on your app if you aren't careful.

Question about whether to include something in the __init__() method

I am new to OOP and hence, am looking for suggestions on good practice for coding something where the following issue arises.
I am defining a Seller(a, b, c, d) class. There are many attributes of this class, two of which are, mostRecentProfit and profitHistory. However, values of these two are not known when the class is initialized. Some other steps in the program have to be executed before these are realized. My questions is:
In the __init__(a, b, c, d) of the seller class, should I write
self.mostRecentProfit = None
self.profitHistory = []
or, should I not define these at all in the __init__ method. The reason former appears attractive to me is that by looking at the __init__() method, I can know all the attributes for the class. However, that may not be a good reason for doing this. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thank you.

Defining the attributes in __init__() makes the code better for when someone who has not seen the code has to start working with it. It can be confusing when a class starts accessing an attribute that doesn't seem to exist at first.
Also, since one of your default values is a list instead of None, initializing it means you can always treat the attribute as a list and never have to worry about it's state.

I would define them. In my experience, not doing so when the code dealing with the instances makes frequent references to those properties, means you end up forever typing if object.profitHistory: before looping etc. With an empty list there, you can skip those conditions. And as you say, it makes it much more legible.

I would define them all in the __init() method because that would not only document what they all normally were, but if you define their default values to all be something valid, allow most of the rest of your code to easily process instances of the class even if these attributes never get updated.
So, in your example, that would mean initializing self.mostRecentProfit to 0 or perhaps 0.0 rather than None. Doing this would allow it to be used as a number without checking for it's existence with a value not equal to None before each reference to it or wrapping each of them in a try/except block to handle the cases where they were never explicitly set to another value.

Parameter names in Python functions that take single object or iterable

I have some functions in my code that accept either an object or an iterable of objects as input. I was taught to use meaningful names for everything, but I am not sure how to comply here. What should I call a parameter that can a sinlge object or an iterable of objects? I have come up with two ideas, but I don't like either of them:
FooOrManyFoos - This expresses what goes on, but I could imagine that someone not used to it could have trouble understanding what it means right away
param - Some generic name. This makes clear that it can be several things, but does explain nothing about what the parameter is used for.
Normally I call iterables of objects just the plural of what I would call a single object. I know this might seem a little bit compulsive, but Python is supposed to be (among others) about readability.

I have some functions in my code that accept either an object or an iterable of objects as input.
This is a very exceptional and often very bad thing to do. It's trivially avoidable.
i.e., pass [foo] instead of foo when calling this function.
The only time you can justify doing this is when (1) you have an installed base of software that expects one form (iterable or singleton) and (2) you have to expand it to support the other use case. So. You only do this when expanding an existing function that has an existing code base.
If this is new development, Do Not Do This.
I have come up with two ideas, but I don't like either of them:
[Only two?]
FooOrManyFoos - This expresses what goes on, but I could imagine that someone not used to it could have trouble understanding what it means right away
What? Are you saying you provide NO other documentation, and no other training? No support? No advice? Who is the "someone not used to it"? Talk to them. Don't assume or imagine things about them.
Also, don't use Leading Upper Case Names.
param - Some generic name. This makes clear that it can be several things, but does explain nothing about what the parameter is used for.
Terrible. Never. Do. This.
I looked in the Python library for examples. Most of the functions that do this have simple descriptions.
http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html#isinstance
isinstance(object, classinfo)
They call it "classinfo" and it can be a class or a tuple of classes.
You could do that, too.
You must consider the common use case and the exceptions. Follow the 80/20 rule.
80% of the time, you can replace this with an iterable and not have this problem.
In the remaining 20% of the cases, you have an installed base of software built around an assumption (either iterable or single item) and you need to add the other case. Don't change the name, just change the documentation. If it used to say "foo" it still says "foo" but you make it accept an iterable of "foo's" without making any change to the parameters. If it used to say "foo_list" or "foo_iter", then it still says "foo_list" or "foo_iter" but it will quietly tolerate a singleton without breaking.
80% of the code is the legacy ("foo" or "foo_list")
20% of the code is the new feature ("foo" can be an iterable or "foo_list" can be a single object.)

I guess I'm a little late to the party, but I'm suprised that nobody suggested a decorator.
def withmany(f):
def many(many_foos):
for foo in many_foos:
yield f(foo)
f.many = many
return f
#withmany
def process_foo(foo):
return foo + 1
processed_foo = process_foo(foo)
for processed_foo in process_foo.many(foos):
print processed_foo
I saw a similar pattern in one of Alex Martelli's posts but I don't remember the link off hand.

It sounds like you're agonizing over the ugliness of code like:
def ProcessWidget(widget_thing):
# Infer if we have a singleton instance and make it a
# length 1 list for consistency
if isinstance(widget_thing, WidgetType):
widget_thing = [widget_thing]
for widget in widget_thing:
#...
My suggestion is to avoid overloading your interface to handle two distinct cases. I tend to write code that favors re-use and clear naming of methods over clever dynamic use of parameters:
def ProcessOneWidget(widget):
#...
def ProcessManyWidgets(widgets):
for widget in widgets:
ProcessOneWidget(widget)
Often, I start with this simple pattern, but then have the opportunity to optimize the "Many" case when there are efficiencies to gain that offset the additional code complexity and partial duplication of functionality. If this convention seems overly verbose, one can opt for names like "ProcessWidget" and "ProcessWidgets", though the difference between the two is a single easily missed character.

You can use *args magic (varargs) to make your params always be iterable.
Pass a single item or multiple known items as normal function args like func(arg1, arg2, ...) and pass iterable arguments with an asterisk before, like func(*args)
Example:
# magic *args function
def foo(*args):
print args
# many ways to call it
foo(1)
foo(1, 2, 3)
args1 = (1, 2, 3)
args2 = [1, 2, 3]
args3 = iter((1, 2, 3))
foo(*args1)
foo(*args2)
foo(*args3)

Can you name your parameter in a very high-level way? people who read the code are more interested in knowing what the parameter represents ("clients") than what their type is ("list_of_tuples"); the type can be defined in the function documentation string, which is a good thing since it might change, in the future (the type is sometimes an implementation detail).

I would do 1 thing,
def myFunc(manyFoos):
if not type(manyFoos) in (list,tuple):
manyFoos = [manyFoos]
#do stuff here
so then you don't need to worry anymore about its name.
in a function you should try to achieve to have 1 action, accept the same parameter type and return the same type.
Instead of filling the functions with ifs you could have 2 functions.

Since you don't care exactly what kind of iterable you get, you could try to get an iterator for the parameter using iter(). If iter() raises a TypeError exception, the parameter is not iterable, so you then create a list or tuple of the one item, which is iterable and Bob's your uncle.
def doIt(foos):
try:
iter(foos)
except TypeError:
foos = [foos]
for foo in foos:
pass # do something here
The only problem with this approach is if foo is a string. A string is iterable, so passing in a single string rather than a list of strings will result in iterating over the characters in a string. If this is a concern, you could add an if test for it. At this point it's getting wordy for boilerplate code, so I'd break it out into its own function.
def iterfy(iterable):
if isinstance(iterable, basestring):
iterable = [iterable]
try:
iter(iterable)
except TypeError:
iterable = [iterable]
return iterable
def doIt(foos):
for foo in iterfy(foos):
pass # do something
Unlike some of those answering, I like doing this, since it eliminates one thing the caller could get wrong when using your API. "Be conservative in what you generate but liberal in what you accept."
To answer your original question, i.e. what you should name the parameter, I would still go with "foos" even though you will accept a single item, since your intent is to accept a list. If it's not iterable, that is technically a mistake, albeit one you will correct for the caller since processing just the one item is probably what they want. Also, if the caller thinks they must pass in an iterable even of one item, well, that will of course work fine and requires very little syntax, so why worry about correcting their misapprehension?

I would go with a name explaining that the parameter can be an instance or a list of instances. Say one_or_more_Foo_objects. I find it better than the bland param.

I'm working on a fairly big project now and we're passing maps around and just calling our parameter map. The map contents vary depending on the function that's being called. This probably isn't the best situation, but we reuse a lot of the same code on the maps, so copying and pasting is easier.
I would say instead of naming it what it is, you should name it what it's used for. Also, just be careful that you can't call use in on a not iterable.