I try to stick to the PEP8 coding conventions. I have a package called main. Inside the package there is a module called time, which has a class called Time inside. Now I have a bit of trouble finding a suitable name for my actual instance because time, which would be usually my choice, is already taken by the module and there seems to be a name-clash if I name it this way.
from main.time import Time
time = Time()
...
if time.status == main.time.STOPPED
Maybe I also placed the constant in the wrong module, but I thought that it would be better to have my constants at the place where they belong to. This is a constant used in my class Time (and the main module), so I can make sure that I don't mix it up with another constant called STOPPED used for player movement. Unfortunately I get an AttributeError: 'function' object has no attribute 'time'.
What would be the best solution here? Rename the constants to TIME_STOPPED and PLAYER_STOPPED and put them into a constants module? Naming my instance variable my_time or time_ or something like this is not really what I would like to do. What's the Pythonic way?
Using the name time is a bad choice to begin with, not just because you already have a module that is named time, but also because there is a standard library module named time.
Anyways, this is not actually your problem (perhaps a clash with the STL module is, but you don't show enough code). The error AttributeError: 'function' object has no attribute 'time' means that main (in main.time) is a function, not module. Your line time = Time() is not the cause of this, but another function object called main inside your executable.
Related
This may be a stupid question, but I don't get in Python how we can use object that we did not some define or imported.
Consider the following example, using Python's datetime module:
from datetime import date
date1 = date(2019,1,1)
date2 = date(2019,1,5)
type(date2-date1) #<class 'datetime.timedelta'>
type(date2) #<class 'datetime.date'>
Then date2-date1 is of timedelta class, even though we haven't imported this.
(I could probably also cook up other examples, where we obtain objects, even though we haven't defined them.)
How can this be?
Should I think about these new objects that pop up simply as pieces in memory that are being returned by other functions, that, even though we haven't defined them, contain "in themselves" enough information so that the Python interpreter can meaningfully apply the type() and other functions to them?
You are incorrectly assuming that import limits what is loaded into memory. import limits what names are bound in your module globals.
The whole module is still loaded, as are dependencies of that module. Just because your namespace doesn't bind a reference to the datetime.timedelta object doesn't mean it is not available to the datetime module.
See the import statement documentation:
The from form uses a slightly more complex process:
find the module specified in the from clause, loading and initializing it if necessary;
for each of the identifiers specified in the import clauses:
check if the imported module has an attribute by that name
if not, attempt to import a submodule with that name and then check the imported module again for that attribute
if the attribute is not found, ImportError is raised.
otherwise, a reference to that value is stored in the local namespace, using the name in the as clause if it is present, otherwise using the attribute name
So loading and initialising of modules is a separate step, executed once per module. The second step binds names in your namespace.
from datetime import date makes sure the datetime module is loaded, then finds datetime.date and adds date = datetime.date to your namespace.
If you want to see what modules are loaded, check out the sys.modules mapping. That's the location that the import statement machinery checks to see if a given module has been loaded yet.
from datetime import date
Date is importing timedelta somewhere, as it might be a dependency, even if you don't see it.
I have bunch of modules to import and run. I have dynamically imported the modules using Dynamic module import in Python. This is in the main code. Once imported, I'm trying to run the functions in the modules.
All of the modules look like this structure
#function foo
def run(a,b)
c=a+b
return c
foo has been imported, I need to say something like bar=foo.run(a,b) dynamically
from this example:
How to call Python functions dynamically. I have already tried the following:
i='foo'
bar = getattr(sys.modules[__name__], i+'.run()')(a,b)
traceback AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'foo.run()'
I'm confused, about the attribute error. The calling functions dynamically example is clearly calling functions.
If you have imported foo already, but don't have a reference to it, use:
sys.modules['foo'].run(a,b)
the_module.run(a, b)
Regardless of what magic made the module come into existence, it's an ordinary module object with ordinary attributes, and you know that the function is called run.
If you always know you'll use module foo, you're done.
You may also need to find the module object dynamically, because the module to choose varies.
If you imported the module properly, under the name you use to refer to it (e.g. foo) rather than some other name, you can also use sys.modules[mod_name].
Otherwise, you should probably have a dictionary of modules so that you can say, the_module = modules[mod_name].
In python, if you need a module from a different package you have to import it. Coming from a Java background, that makes sense.
import foo.bar
What doesn't make sense though, is why do I need to use the full name whenever I want to use bar? If I wanted to use the full name, why do I need to import? Doesn't using the full name immediately describe which module I'm addressing?
It just seems a little redundant to have from foo import bar when that's what import foo.bar should be doing. Also a little vague why I had to import when I was going to use the full name.
The thing is, even though Python's import statement is designed to look similar to Java's, they do completely different things under the hood. As you know, in Java an import statement is really little more than a hint to the compiler. It basically sets up an alias for a fully qualified class name. For example, when you write
import java.util.Set;
it tells the compiler that throughout that file, when you write Set, you mean java.util.Set. And if you write s.add(o) where s is an object of type Set, the compiler (or rather, linker) goes out and finds the add method in Set.class and puts in a reference to it.
But in Python,
import util.set
(that is a made-up module, by the way) does something completely different. See, in Python, packages and modules are not just names, they're actual objects, and when you write util.set in your code, that instructs Python to access an object named util and look for an attribute on it named set. The job of Python's import statement is to create that object and attribute. The way it works is that the interpreter looks for a file named util/__init__.py, uses the code in it to define properties of an object, and binds that object to the name util. Similarly, the code in util/set.py is used to initialize an object which is bound to util.set. There's a function called __import__ which takes care of all of this, and in fact the statement import util.set is basically equivalent to
util = __import__('util.set')
The point is, when you import a Python module, what you get is an object corresponding to the top-level package, util. In order to get access to util.set you need to go through that, and that's why it seems like you need to use fully qualified names in Python.
There are ways to get around this, of course. Since all these things are objects, one simple approach is to just bind util.set to a simpler name, i.e. after the import statement, you can have
set = util.set
and from that point on you can just use set where you otherwise would have written util.set. (Of course this obscures the built-in set class, so I don't recommend actually using the name set.) Or, as mentioned in at least one other answer, you could write
from util import set
or
import util.set as set
This still imports the package util with the module set in it, but instead of creating a variable util in the current scope, it creates a variable set that refers to util.set. Behind the scenes, this works kind of like
_util = __import__('util', fromlist='set')
set = _util.set
del _util
in the former case, or
_util = __import__('util.set')
set = _util.set
del _util
in the latter (although both ways do essentially the same thing). This form is semantically more like what Java's import statement does: it defines an alias (set) to something that would ordinarily only be accessible by a fully qualified name (util.set).
You can shorten it, if you would like:
import foo.bar as whateveriwant
Using the full name prevents two packages with the same-named submodules from clobbering each other.
There is a module in the standard library called io:
In [84]: import io
In [85]: io
Out[85]: <module 'io' from '/usr/lib/python2.6/io.pyc'>
There is also a module in scipy called io:
In [95]: import scipy.io
In [96]: scipy.io
Out[96]: <module 'scipy.io' from '/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/scipy/io/__init__.pyc'>
If you wanted to use both modules in the same script, then namespaces are a convenient way to distinguish the two.
In [97]: import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
...
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
in Python, importing doesn't just indicate you might use something. The import actually executes code at the module level. You can think of the import as being the moment where the functions are 'interpreted' and created. Any code that is in the _____init_____.py level or not inside a function or class definition happens then.
The import also makes an inexpensive copy of the whole module's namespace and puts it inside the namespace of the file / module / whatever where it is imported. An IDE then has a list of the functions you might be starting to type for command completion.
Part of the Python philosophy is explicit is better than implicit. Python could automatically import the first time you try to access something from a package, but that's not explicit.
I'm also guessing that package initialization would be much more difficult if the imports were automatic, as it wouldn't be done consistently in the code.
You're a bit confused about how Python imports work. (I was too when I first started.) In Python, you can't simply refer to something within a module by the full name, unlike in Java; you HAVE to import the module first, regardless of how you plan on referring to the imported item. Try typing math.sqrt(5) in the interpreter without importing math or math.sqrt first and see what happens.
Anyway... the reason import foo.bar has you required to use foo.bar instead of just bar is to prevent accidental namespace conflicts. For example, what if you do import foo.bar, and then import baz.bar?
You could, of course, choose to do import foo.bar as bar (i.e. aliasing), but if you're doing that you may as well just use from foo import bar. (EDIT: except when you want to import methods and variables. Then you have to use the from ... import ... syntax. This includes instances where you want to import a method or variable without aliasing, i.e. you can't simply do import foo.bar if bar is a method or variable.)
Other than in Java, in Python import foo.bar declares, that you are going to use the thing referred to by foo.bar.
This matches with Python's philosophy that explicit is better than implicit. There are more programming languages that make inter-module dependencies more explicit than Java, for example Ada.
Using the full name makes it possible to disambiguate definitions with the same name coming from different modules.
You don't have to use the full name. Try one of these
from foo import bar
import foo.bar as bar
import foo.bar
bar = foo.bar
from foo import *
A few reasons why explicit imports are good:
They help signal to humans and tools what packages your module depends on.
They avoid the overhead of dynamically determining which packages have to be loaded (and possibly compiled) at run time.
They (along with sys.path) unambiguously distinguish symbols with conflicting names from different namespaces.
They give the programmer some control of what enters the namespace within which he is working.
I'd like to dynamically create a module from a dictionary, and I'm wondering if adding an element to sys.modules is really the best way to do this. EG
context = { a: 1, b: 2 }
import types
test_context_module = types.ModuleType('TestContext', 'Module created to provide a context for tests')
test_context_module.__dict__.update(context)
import sys
sys.modules['TestContext'] = test_context_module
My immediate goal in this regard is to be able to provide a context for timing test execution:
import timeit
timeit.Timer('a + b', 'from TestContext import *')
It seems that there are other ways to do this, since the Timer constructor takes objects as well as strings. I'm still interested in learning how to do this though, since a) it has other potential applications; and b) I'm not sure exactly how to use objects with the Timer constructor; doing so may prove to be less appropriate than this approach in some circumstances.
EDITS/REVELATIONS/PHOOEYS/EUREKA:
I've realized that the example code relating to running timing tests won't actually work, because import * only works at the module level, and the context in which that statement is executed is that of a function in the testit module. In other words, the globals dictionary used when executing that code is that of __main__, since that's where I was when I wrote the code in the interactive shell. So that rationale for figuring this out is a bit botched, but it's still a valid question.
I've discovered that the code run in the first set of examples has the undesirable effect that the namespace in which the newly created module's code executes is that of the module in which it was declared, not its own module. This is like way weird, and could lead to all sorts of unexpected rattlesnakeic sketchiness. So I'm pretty sure that this is not how this sort of thing is meant to be done, if it is in fact something that the Guido doth shine upon.
The similar-but-subtly-different case of dynamically loading a module from a file that is not in python's include path is quite easily accomplished using imp.load_source('NewModuleName', 'path/to/module/module_to_load.py'). This does load the module into sys.modules. However this doesn't really answer my question, because really, what if you're running python on an embedded platform with no filesystem?
I'm battling a considerable case of information overload at the moment, so I could be mistaken, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the imp module that's capable of this.
But the question, essentially, at this point is how to set the global (ie module) context for an object. Maybe I should ask that more specifically? And at a larger scope, how to get Python to do this while shoehorning objects into a given module?
Hmm, well one thing I can tell you is that the timeit function actually executes its code using the module's global variables. So in your example, you could write
import timeit
timeit.a = 1
timeit.b = 2
timeit.Timer('a + b').timeit()
and it would work. But that doesn't address your more general problem of defining a module dynamically.
Regarding the module definition problem, it's definitely possible and I think you've stumbled on to pretty much the best way to do it. For reference, the gist of what goes on when Python imports a module is basically the following:
module = imp.new_module(name)
execfile(file, module.__dict__)
That's kind of the same thing you do, except that you load the contents of the module from an existing dictionary instead of a file. (I don't know of any difference between types.ModuleType and imp.new_module other than the docstring, so you can probably use them interchangeably) What you're doing is somewhat akin to writing your own importer, and when you do that, you can certainly expect to mess with sys.modules.
As an aside, even if your import * thing was legal within a function, you might still have problems because oddly enough, the statement you pass to the Timer doesn't seem to recognize its own local variables. I invoked a bit of Python voodoo by the name of extract_context() (it's a function I wrote) to set a and b at the local scope and ran
print timeit.Timer('print locals(); a + b', 'sys.modules["__main__"].extract_context()').timeit()
Sure enough, the printout of locals() included a and b:
{'a': 1, 'b': 2, '_timer': <built-in function time>, '_it': repeat(None, 999999), '_t0': 1277378305.3572791, '_i': None}
but it still complained NameError: global name 'a' is not defined. Weird.
I know this does not sound Pythonic, but bear with me for a second.
I am writing a module that depends on some external closed-source module. That module needs to get instantiated to be used (using module.create()).
My module attempts to figure out if my user already loaded that module (easy to do), but then needs to figure out if the module was instantiated. I understand that checking out the type() of each variable can tell me this, but I am not sure how I can get the names of variables defined by the main program. The reason for this is that when one instantiates the model, they also set a bunch of parameters that I do not want to overwrite for any reason.
My attempts so far involved using sys._getframe().f_globals and iterating through the elements, but in my testing it doesn't work. If I instantiate the module as modInst and then call the function in my module, it fails to show the modInst variable. Is there another solution to this? Sample code provided below.
import sys
if moduleName not in sys.modules:
import moduleName
modInst = moduleName.create()
else:
globalVars = sys._getframe().f_globals
for key, value in globalVars:
if value == "Module Name Instance":
return key
return moduleName.create()
EDIT: Sample code included.
Looks like your code assumes that the .create() function was called, if at all, by the immediate/direct caller of your function (which you show only partially, making it pretty hard to be sure about what's going on) and the results placed in a global variable (of the module where the caller of your function resides). It all seems pretty fragile. Doesn't that third-party module have some global variables of its own that are affected by whether the module's create has been called or not? I imagine it would -- where else is it keeping the state-changes resulting from executing the create -- and I would explore that.
To address a specific issue you raise,
I am not sure how I can get the names
of variables defined by the main
program
that's easy -- the main program is found, as a module, in sys.modules['__main__'], so just use vars(sys.modules['__main__']) to get the global dictionary of the main program (the variable names are the keys in that dictionary, along of course with names of functions, classes, etc -- the module, like any other module, has exactly one top-level/global namespace, not one for variables, a separate one for functions, etc).
Suppose the external closed-sourced module is called extmod.
Create my_extmod.py:
import extmod
INSTANTIATED=False
def create(*args,**kw):
global INSTANTIATED
INSTANTIATED=True
return extmod.create(*args,**kw)
Then require your users to import my_extmod instead of extmod directly.
To test if the create function has been called, just check the value of extmod.INSTANTIATED.
Edit: If you open up an IPython session and type import extmod, then type
extmod.[TAB], then you'll see all the top-level variables in the extmod namespace. This might help you find some parameter that changes when extmod.create is called.
Barring that, and barring the possibility of training users to import my_extmod, then perhaps you could use something like the function below. find_extmod_instance searches through all modules in sys.modules.
def find_instance(cls):
for modname in sys.modules:
module=sys.modules[modname]
for value in vars(module).values():
if isinstance(value,cls):
return value
x=find_instance(extmod.ExtmodClass) or extmod.create()