Related
I'm trying to add a __set_name__ hook to the descriptor produced by functools.wraps inside a decorator, but it is never called and I don't see any error messages:
import functools
def wrap(fn):
"""Decorator."""
#functools.wraps(fn)
def w(*args, **kwargs):
return fn(*args, **kwargs)
# This never gets called.
def set_name(self, obj, name):
print(f"inside __set_name__: {self=}, {obj=}, {name=}")
w.__set_name__ = set_name.__get__(w)
return w
class Foo:
#wrap
def foo(self):
pass
From what I understand, wrap() is called and its return value bound to the foo variable in the class's execution frame before the Foo class is created, so the __set_name__ hook should be in place by the time Python looks for it. So why isn't it being called?
Whenever Python looks for magic methods, it looks on the type of the object, not the instance. What you've done is take a function object (the return value of functools.wrap, in this case) and assign something on its __dict__. But for efficiency (and correctness, in some cases), special methods like __set_name__ bypass __dict__ and look on the type object directly. See Special method lookup for details and a rationale.
To make your code work, you need to create a custom callable class (i.e. a class which defines a function called __call__), define __set_name__ on that class, and then make w an instance of that class.
I'm just trying to streamline one of my classes and have introduced some functionality in the same style as the flyweight design pattern.
However, I'm a bit confused as to why __init__ is always called after __new__. I wasn't expecting this. Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how I can implement this functionality otherwise? (Apart from putting the implementation into the __new__ which feels quite hacky.)
Here's an example:
class A(object):
_dict = dict()
def __new__(cls):
if 'key' in A._dict:
print "EXISTS"
return A._dict['key']
else:
print "NEW"
return super(A, cls).__new__(cls)
def __init__(self):
print "INIT"
A._dict['key'] = self
print ""
a1 = A()
a2 = A()
a3 = A()
Outputs:
NEW
INIT
EXISTS
INIT
EXISTS
INIT
Why?
Use __new__ when you need to control
the creation of a new instance.
Use
__init__ when you need to control initialization of a new instance.
__new__ is the first step of instance creation. It's called first, and is
responsible for returning a new
instance of your class.
In contrast,
__init__ doesn't return anything; it's only responsible for initializing the
instance after it's been created.
In general, you shouldn't need to
override __new__ unless you're
subclassing an immutable type like
str, int, unicode or tuple.
From April 2008 post: When to use __new__ vs. __init__? on mail.python.org.
You should consider that what you are trying to do is usually done with a Factory and that's the best way to do it. Using __new__ is not a good clean solution so please consider the usage of a factory. Here's a good example: ActiveState Fᴀᴄᴛᴏʀʏ ᴘᴀᴛᴛᴇʀɴ Recipe.
__new__ is static class method, while __init__ is instance method.
__new__ has to create the instance first, so __init__ can initialize it. Note that __init__ takes self as parameter. Until you create instance there is no self.
Now, I gather, that you're trying to implement singleton pattern in Python. There are a few ways to do that.
Also, as of Python 2.6, you can use class decorators.
def singleton(cls):
instances = {}
def getinstance():
if cls not in instances:
instances[cls] = cls()
return instances[cls]
return getinstance
#singleton
class MyClass:
...
In most well-known OO languages, an expression like SomeClass(arg1, arg2) will allocate a new instance, initialise the instance's attributes, and then return it.
In most well-known OO languages, the "initialise the instance's attributes" part can be customised for each class by defining a constructor, which is basically just a block of code that operates on the new instance (using the arguments provided to the constructor expression) to set up whatever initial conditions are desired. In Python, this corresponds to the class' __init__ method.
Python's __new__ is nothing more and nothing less than similar per-class customisation of the "allocate a new instance" part. This of course allows you to do unusual things such as returning an existing instance rather than allocating a new one. So in Python, we shouldn't really think of this part as necessarily involving allocation; all that we require is that __new__ comes up with a suitable instance from somewhere.
But it's still only half of the job, and there's no way for the Python system to know that sometimes you want to run the other half of the job (__init__) afterwards and sometimes you don't. If you want that behavior, you have to say so explicitly.
Often, you can refactor so you only need __new__, or so you don't need __new__, or so that __init__ behaves differently on an already-initialised object. But if you really want to, Python does actually allow you to redefine "the job", so that SomeClass(arg1, arg2) doesn't necessarily call __new__ followed by __init__. To do this, you need to create a metaclass, and define its __call__ method.
A metaclass is just the class of a class. And a class' __call__ method controls what happens when you call instances of the class. So a metaclass' __call__ method controls what happens when you call a class; i.e. it allows you to redefine the instance-creation mechanism from start to finish. This is the level at which you can most elegantly implement a completely non-standard instance creation process such as the singleton pattern. In fact, with less than 10 lines of code you can implement a Singleton metaclass that then doesn't even require you to futz with __new__ at all, and can turn any otherwise-normal class into a singleton by simply adding __metaclass__ = Singleton!
class Singleton(type):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super(Singleton, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.__instance = None
def __call__(self, *args, **kwargs):
if self.__instance is None:
self.__instance = super(Singleton, self).__call__(*args, **kwargs)
return self.__instance
However this is probably deeper magic than is really warranted for this situation!
To quote the documentation:
Typical implementations create a new instance of the class by invoking
the superclass's __new__() method using "super(currentclass,
cls).__new__(cls[, ...])"with appropriate arguments and then
modifying the newly-created instance as necessary before returning it.
...
If __new__() does not return an instance of cls, then the new
instance's __init__() method will not be invoked.
__new__() is intended mainly to allow subclasses of immutable
types (like int, str, or tuple) to customize instance creation.
I realize that this question is quite old but I had a similar issue.
The following did what I wanted:
class Agent(object):
_agents = dict()
def __new__(cls, *p):
number = p[0]
if not number in cls._agents:
cls._agents[number] = object.__new__(cls)
return cls._agents[number]
def __init__(self, number):
self.number = number
def __eq__(self, rhs):
return self.number == rhs.number
Agent("a") is Agent("a") == True
I used this page as a resource http://infohost.nmt.edu/tcc/help/pubs/python/web/new-new-method.html
When __new__ returns instance of the same class, __init__ is run afterwards on returned object. I.e. you can NOT use __new__ to prevent __init__ from being run. Even if you return previously created object from __new__, it will be double (triple, etc...) initialized by __init__ again and again.
Here is the generic approach to Singleton pattern which extends vartec answer above and fixes it:
def SingletonClass(cls):
class Single(cls):
__doc__ = cls.__doc__
_initialized = False
_instance = None
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
if not cls._instance:
cls._instance = super(Single, cls).__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
return cls._instance
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
if self._initialized:
return
super(Single, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.__class__._initialized = True # Its crucial to set this variable on the class!
return Single
Full story is here.
Another approach, which in fact involves __new__ is to use classmethods:
class Singleton(object):
__initialized = False
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
if not cls.__initialized:
cls.__init__(*args, **kwargs)
cls.__initialized = True
return cls
class MyClass(Singleton):
#classmethod
def __init__(cls, x, y):
print "init is here"
#classmethod
def do(cls):
print "doing stuff"
Please pay attention, that with this approach you need to decorate ALL of your methods with #classmethod, because you'll never use any real instance of MyClass.
I think the simple answer to this question is that, if __new__ returns a value that is the same type as the class, the __init__ function executes, otherwise it won't. In this case your code returns A._dict('key') which is the same class as cls, so __init__ will be executed.
class M(type):
_dict = {}
def __call__(cls, key):
if key in cls._dict:
print 'EXISTS'
return cls._dict[key]
else:
print 'NEW'
instance = super(M, cls).__call__(key)
cls._dict[key] = instance
return instance
class A(object):
__metaclass__ = M
def __init__(self, key):
print 'INIT'
self.key = key
print
a1 = A('aaa')
a2 = A('bbb')
a3 = A('aaa')
outputs:
NEW
INIT
NEW
INIT
EXISTS
NB As a side effect M._dict property automatically becomes accessible from A as A._dict so take care not to overwrite it incidentally.
An update to #AntonyHatchkins answer, you probably want a separate dictionary of instances for each class of the metatype, meaning that you should have an __init__ method in the metaclass to initialize your class object with that dictionary instead of making it global across all the classes.
class MetaQuasiSingleton(type):
def __init__(cls, name, bases, attibutes):
cls._dict = {}
def __call__(cls, key):
if key in cls._dict:
print('EXISTS')
instance = cls._dict[key]
else:
print('NEW')
instance = super().__call__(key)
cls._dict[key] = instance
return instance
class A(metaclass=MetaQuasiSingleton):
def __init__(self, key):
print 'INIT'
self.key = key
print()
I have gone ahead and updated the original code with an __init__ method and changed the syntax to Python 3 notation (no-arg call to super and metaclass in the class arguments instead of as an attribute).
Either way, the important point here is that your class initializer (__call__ method) will not execute either __new__ or __init__ if the key is found. This is much cleaner than using __new__, which requires you to mark the object if you want to skip the default __init__ step.
__new__ should return a new, blank instance of a class. __init__ is then called to initialise that instance. You're not calling __init__ in the "NEW" case of __new__, so it's being called for you. The code that is calling __new__ doesn't keep track of whether __init__ has been called on a particular instance or not nor should it, because you're doing something very unusual here.
You could add an attribute to the object in the __init__ function to indicate that it's been initialised. Check for the existence of that attribute as the first thing in __init__ and don't proceed any further if it has been.
Digging little deeper into that!
The type of a generic class in CPython is type and its base class is Object (Unless you explicitly define another base class like a metaclass). The sequence of low level calls can be found here. The first method called is the type_call which then calls tp_new and then tp_init.
The interesting part here is that tp_new will call the Object's (base class) new method object_new which does a tp_alloc (PyType_GenericAlloc) which allocates the memory for the object :)
At that point the object is created in memory and then the __init__ method gets called. If __init__ is not implemented in your class then the object_init gets called and it does nothing :)
Then type_call just returns the object which binds to your variable.
One should look at __init__ as a simple constructor in traditional OO languages. For example, if you are familiar with Java or C++, the constructor is passed a pointer to its own instance implicitly. In the case of Java, it is the this variable. If one were to inspect the byte code generated for Java, one would notice two calls. The first call is to an "new" method, and then next call is to the init method (which is the actual call to the user defined constructor). This two step process enables creation of the actual instance before calling the constructor method of the class which is just another method of that instance.
Now, in the case of Python, __new__ is a added facility that is accessible to the user. Java does not provide that flexibility, due to its typed nature. If a language provided that facility, then the implementor of __new__ could do many things in that method before returning the instance, including creating a totally new instance of a unrelated object in some cases. And, this approach also works out well for especially for immutable types in the case of Python.
However, I'm a bit confused as to why __init__ is always called after __new__.
I think the C++ analogy would be useful here:
__new__ simply allocates memory for the object. The instance variables of an object needs memory to hold it, and this is what the step __new__ would do.
__init__ initialize the internal variables of the object to specific values (could be default).
Referring to this doc:
When subclassing immutable built-in types like numbers and strings,
and occasionally in other situations, the static method __new__ comes
in handy. __new__ is the first step in instance construction, invoked
before __init__.
The __new__ method is called with the class as its
first argument; its responsibility is to return a new instance of that
class.
Compare this to __init__: __init__ is called with an instance
as its first argument, and it doesn't return anything; its
responsibility is to initialize the instance.
There are situations
where a new instance is created without calling __init__ (for example
when the instance is loaded from a pickle). There is no way to create
a new instance without calling __new__ (although in some cases you can
get away with calling a base class's __new__).
Regarding what you wish to achieve, there also in same doc info about Singleton pattern
class Singleton(object):
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwds):
it = cls.__dict__.get("__it__")
if it is not None:
return it
cls.__it__ = it = object.__new__(cls)
it.init(*args, **kwds)
return it
def init(self, *args, **kwds):
pass
you may also use this implementation from PEP 318, using a decorator
def singleton(cls):
instances = {}
def getinstance():
if cls not in instances:
instances[cls] = cls()
return instances[cls]
return getinstance
#singleton
class MyClass:
...
Now I've got the same problem, and for some reasons I decided to avoid decorators, factories and metaclasses. I did it like this:
Main file
def _alt(func):
import functools
#functools.wraps(func)
def init(self, *p, **k):
if hasattr(self, "parent_initialized"):
return
else:
self.parent_initialized = True
func(self, *p, **k)
return init
class Parent:
# Empty dictionary, shouldn't ever be filled with anything else
parent_cache = {}
def __new__(cls, n, *args, **kwargs):
# Checks if object with this ID (n) has been created
if n in cls.parent_cache:
# It was, return it
return cls.parent_cache[n]
else:
# Check if it was modified by this function
if not hasattr(cls, "parent_modified"):
# Add the attribute
cls.parent_modified = True
cls.parent_cache = {}
# Apply it
cls.__init__ = _alt(cls.__init__)
# Get the instance
obj = super().__new__(cls)
# Push it to cache
cls.parent_cache[n] = obj
# Return it
return obj
Example classes
class A(Parent):
def __init__(self, n):
print("A.__init__", n)
class B(Parent):
def __init__(self, n):
print("B.__init__", n)
In use
>>> A(1)
A.__init__ 1 # First A(1) initialized
<__main__.A object at 0x000001A73A4A2E48>
>>> A(1) # Returned previous A(1)
<__main__.A object at 0x000001A73A4A2E48>
>>> A(2)
A.__init__ 2 # First A(2) initialized
<__main__.A object at 0x000001A7395D9C88>
>>> B(2)
B.__init__ 2 # B class doesn't collide with A, thanks to separate cache
<__main__.B object at 0x000001A73951B080>
Warning: You shouldn't initialize Parent, it will collide with other classes - unless you defined separate cache in each of the children, that's not what we want.
Warning: It seems a class with Parent as grandparent behaves weird. [Unverified]
Try it online!
The __init__ is called after __new__ so that when you override it in a subclass, your added code will still get called.
If you are trying to subclass a class that already has a __new__, someone unaware of this might start by adapting the __init__ and forwarding the call down to the subclass __init__. This convention of calling __init__ after __new__ helps that work as expected.
The __init__ still needs to allow for any parameters the superclass __new__ needed, but failing to do so will usually create a clear runtime error. And the __new__ should probably explicitly allow for *args and '**kw', to make it clear that extension is OK.
It is generally bad form to have both __new__ and __init__ in the same class at the same level of inheritance, because of the behavior the original poster described.
However, I'm a bit confused as to why __init__ is always called after __new__.
Not much of a reason other than that it just is done that way. __new__ doesn't have the responsibility of initializing the class, some other method does (__call__, possibly-- I don't know for sure).
I wasn't expecting this. Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how I implement this functionality otherwise? (apart from putting the implementation into the __new__ which feels quite hacky).
You could have __init__ do nothing if it's already been initialized, or you could write a new metaclass with a new __call__ that only calls __init__ on new instances, and otherwise just returns __new__(...).
The simple reason is that the new is used for creating an instance, while init is used for initializing the instance. Before initializing, the instance should be created first. That's why new should be called before init.
When instantiating a class, first, __new__() is called to create the instance of a class, then __init__() is called to initialize the instance.
__new__():
Called to create a new instance of class cls. ...
If __new__() is invoked during object construction and it returns an
instance of cls, then the new instance’s __init__() method will be
invoked like __init__(self[, ...]), ...
__init__():
Called after the instance has been created (by __new__()), ...
Because __new__() and __init__() work together in constructing objects
(__new__() to create it, and __init__() to customize it), ...
For example, when instantiating Teacher class, first, __new__() is called to create the instance of Teacher class, then __init__() is called to initialize the instance as shown below:
class Teacher:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
class Student:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
obj = Teacher("John") # Instantiation
print(obj.name)
This is the output:
<class '__main__.Teacher'>
John
And, using __new__() of the instance of Teacher class, we can create the instance of Student class as shown below:
# ...
obj = Teacher("John")
print(type(obj))
print(obj.name)
obj = obj.__new__(Student) # Creates the instance of "Student" class
print(type(obj))
Now, the instance of Student class is created as shown below:
<class '__main__.Teacher'>
<__main__.Teacher object at 0x7f4e3950bf10>
<class '__main__.Student'> # Here
Next, if we try to get the value of name variable from **the instance of Student class as shown below:
obj = Teacher("John")
print(type(obj))
print(obj.name)
obj = obj.__new__(Student)
print(type(obj))
print(obj.name) # Tries to get the value of "name" variable
The error below occurs because the instance of Student class has not been initialized by __init__() yet:
AttributeError: 'Student' object has no attribute 'name'
So, we initialize the instance of Student class as shown below:
obj = Teacher("John")
print(type(obj))
print(obj.name)
obj = obj.__new__(Student)
print(type(obj))
obj.__init__("Tom") # Initializes the instance of "Student" class
print(obj.name)
Then, we can get the value of name variable from the instance of Student class as shown below:
<class '__main__.Teacher'>
John
<class '__main__.Student'>
Tom # Here
People have already detailed the question and answer both use some examples like singleton etc. See the code below:
__instance = None
def __new__(cls):
if cls.__instance is None:
cls.__instance = object.__new__(cls)
return cls.__instance
I got the above code from this link, it has detailed overview of new vs init. Worth reading!
I'm just trying to streamline one of my classes and have introduced some functionality in the same style as the flyweight design pattern.
However, I'm a bit confused as to why __init__ is always called after __new__. I wasn't expecting this. Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how I can implement this functionality otherwise? (Apart from putting the implementation into the __new__ which feels quite hacky.)
Here's an example:
class A(object):
_dict = dict()
def __new__(cls):
if 'key' in A._dict:
print "EXISTS"
return A._dict['key']
else:
print "NEW"
return super(A, cls).__new__(cls)
def __init__(self):
print "INIT"
A._dict['key'] = self
print ""
a1 = A()
a2 = A()
a3 = A()
Outputs:
NEW
INIT
EXISTS
INIT
EXISTS
INIT
Why?
Use __new__ when you need to control
the creation of a new instance.
Use
__init__ when you need to control initialization of a new instance.
__new__ is the first step of instance creation. It's called first, and is
responsible for returning a new
instance of your class.
In contrast,
__init__ doesn't return anything; it's only responsible for initializing the
instance after it's been created.
In general, you shouldn't need to
override __new__ unless you're
subclassing an immutable type like
str, int, unicode or tuple.
From April 2008 post: When to use __new__ vs. __init__? on mail.python.org.
You should consider that what you are trying to do is usually done with a Factory and that's the best way to do it. Using __new__ is not a good clean solution so please consider the usage of a factory. Here's a good example: ActiveState Fᴀᴄᴛᴏʀʏ ᴘᴀᴛᴛᴇʀɴ Recipe.
__new__ is static class method, while __init__ is instance method.
__new__ has to create the instance first, so __init__ can initialize it. Note that __init__ takes self as parameter. Until you create instance there is no self.
Now, I gather, that you're trying to implement singleton pattern in Python. There are a few ways to do that.
Also, as of Python 2.6, you can use class decorators.
def singleton(cls):
instances = {}
def getinstance():
if cls not in instances:
instances[cls] = cls()
return instances[cls]
return getinstance
#singleton
class MyClass:
...
In most well-known OO languages, an expression like SomeClass(arg1, arg2) will allocate a new instance, initialise the instance's attributes, and then return it.
In most well-known OO languages, the "initialise the instance's attributes" part can be customised for each class by defining a constructor, which is basically just a block of code that operates on the new instance (using the arguments provided to the constructor expression) to set up whatever initial conditions are desired. In Python, this corresponds to the class' __init__ method.
Python's __new__ is nothing more and nothing less than similar per-class customisation of the "allocate a new instance" part. This of course allows you to do unusual things such as returning an existing instance rather than allocating a new one. So in Python, we shouldn't really think of this part as necessarily involving allocation; all that we require is that __new__ comes up with a suitable instance from somewhere.
But it's still only half of the job, and there's no way for the Python system to know that sometimes you want to run the other half of the job (__init__) afterwards and sometimes you don't. If you want that behavior, you have to say so explicitly.
Often, you can refactor so you only need __new__, or so you don't need __new__, or so that __init__ behaves differently on an already-initialised object. But if you really want to, Python does actually allow you to redefine "the job", so that SomeClass(arg1, arg2) doesn't necessarily call __new__ followed by __init__. To do this, you need to create a metaclass, and define its __call__ method.
A metaclass is just the class of a class. And a class' __call__ method controls what happens when you call instances of the class. So a metaclass' __call__ method controls what happens when you call a class; i.e. it allows you to redefine the instance-creation mechanism from start to finish. This is the level at which you can most elegantly implement a completely non-standard instance creation process such as the singleton pattern. In fact, with less than 10 lines of code you can implement a Singleton metaclass that then doesn't even require you to futz with __new__ at all, and can turn any otherwise-normal class into a singleton by simply adding __metaclass__ = Singleton!
class Singleton(type):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super(Singleton, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.__instance = None
def __call__(self, *args, **kwargs):
if self.__instance is None:
self.__instance = super(Singleton, self).__call__(*args, **kwargs)
return self.__instance
However this is probably deeper magic than is really warranted for this situation!
To quote the documentation:
Typical implementations create a new instance of the class by invoking
the superclass's __new__() method using "super(currentclass,
cls).__new__(cls[, ...])"with appropriate arguments and then
modifying the newly-created instance as necessary before returning it.
...
If __new__() does not return an instance of cls, then the new
instance's __init__() method will not be invoked.
__new__() is intended mainly to allow subclasses of immutable
types (like int, str, or tuple) to customize instance creation.
I realize that this question is quite old but I had a similar issue.
The following did what I wanted:
class Agent(object):
_agents = dict()
def __new__(cls, *p):
number = p[0]
if not number in cls._agents:
cls._agents[number] = object.__new__(cls)
return cls._agents[number]
def __init__(self, number):
self.number = number
def __eq__(self, rhs):
return self.number == rhs.number
Agent("a") is Agent("a") == True
I used this page as a resource http://infohost.nmt.edu/tcc/help/pubs/python/web/new-new-method.html
When __new__ returns instance of the same class, __init__ is run afterwards on returned object. I.e. you can NOT use __new__ to prevent __init__ from being run. Even if you return previously created object from __new__, it will be double (triple, etc...) initialized by __init__ again and again.
Here is the generic approach to Singleton pattern which extends vartec answer above and fixes it:
def SingletonClass(cls):
class Single(cls):
__doc__ = cls.__doc__
_initialized = False
_instance = None
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
if not cls._instance:
cls._instance = super(Single, cls).__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
return cls._instance
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
if self._initialized:
return
super(Single, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.__class__._initialized = True # Its crucial to set this variable on the class!
return Single
Full story is here.
Another approach, which in fact involves __new__ is to use classmethods:
class Singleton(object):
__initialized = False
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
if not cls.__initialized:
cls.__init__(*args, **kwargs)
cls.__initialized = True
return cls
class MyClass(Singleton):
#classmethod
def __init__(cls, x, y):
print "init is here"
#classmethod
def do(cls):
print "doing stuff"
Please pay attention, that with this approach you need to decorate ALL of your methods with #classmethod, because you'll never use any real instance of MyClass.
I think the simple answer to this question is that, if __new__ returns a value that is the same type as the class, the __init__ function executes, otherwise it won't. In this case your code returns A._dict('key') which is the same class as cls, so __init__ will be executed.
class M(type):
_dict = {}
def __call__(cls, key):
if key in cls._dict:
print 'EXISTS'
return cls._dict[key]
else:
print 'NEW'
instance = super(M, cls).__call__(key)
cls._dict[key] = instance
return instance
class A(object):
__metaclass__ = M
def __init__(self, key):
print 'INIT'
self.key = key
print
a1 = A('aaa')
a2 = A('bbb')
a3 = A('aaa')
outputs:
NEW
INIT
NEW
INIT
EXISTS
NB As a side effect M._dict property automatically becomes accessible from A as A._dict so take care not to overwrite it incidentally.
An update to #AntonyHatchkins answer, you probably want a separate dictionary of instances for each class of the metatype, meaning that you should have an __init__ method in the metaclass to initialize your class object with that dictionary instead of making it global across all the classes.
class MetaQuasiSingleton(type):
def __init__(cls, name, bases, attibutes):
cls._dict = {}
def __call__(cls, key):
if key in cls._dict:
print('EXISTS')
instance = cls._dict[key]
else:
print('NEW')
instance = super().__call__(key)
cls._dict[key] = instance
return instance
class A(metaclass=MetaQuasiSingleton):
def __init__(self, key):
print 'INIT'
self.key = key
print()
I have gone ahead and updated the original code with an __init__ method and changed the syntax to Python 3 notation (no-arg call to super and metaclass in the class arguments instead of as an attribute).
Either way, the important point here is that your class initializer (__call__ method) will not execute either __new__ or __init__ if the key is found. This is much cleaner than using __new__, which requires you to mark the object if you want to skip the default __init__ step.
__new__ should return a new, blank instance of a class. __init__ is then called to initialise that instance. You're not calling __init__ in the "NEW" case of __new__, so it's being called for you. The code that is calling __new__ doesn't keep track of whether __init__ has been called on a particular instance or not nor should it, because you're doing something very unusual here.
You could add an attribute to the object in the __init__ function to indicate that it's been initialised. Check for the existence of that attribute as the first thing in __init__ and don't proceed any further if it has been.
Digging little deeper into that!
The type of a generic class in CPython is type and its base class is Object (Unless you explicitly define another base class like a metaclass). The sequence of low level calls can be found here. The first method called is the type_call which then calls tp_new and then tp_init.
The interesting part here is that tp_new will call the Object's (base class) new method object_new which does a tp_alloc (PyType_GenericAlloc) which allocates the memory for the object :)
At that point the object is created in memory and then the __init__ method gets called. If __init__ is not implemented in your class then the object_init gets called and it does nothing :)
Then type_call just returns the object which binds to your variable.
One should look at __init__ as a simple constructor in traditional OO languages. For example, if you are familiar with Java or C++, the constructor is passed a pointer to its own instance implicitly. In the case of Java, it is the this variable. If one were to inspect the byte code generated for Java, one would notice two calls. The first call is to an "new" method, and then next call is to the init method (which is the actual call to the user defined constructor). This two step process enables creation of the actual instance before calling the constructor method of the class which is just another method of that instance.
Now, in the case of Python, __new__ is a added facility that is accessible to the user. Java does not provide that flexibility, due to its typed nature. If a language provided that facility, then the implementor of __new__ could do many things in that method before returning the instance, including creating a totally new instance of a unrelated object in some cases. And, this approach also works out well for especially for immutable types in the case of Python.
However, I'm a bit confused as to why __init__ is always called after __new__.
I think the C++ analogy would be useful here:
__new__ simply allocates memory for the object. The instance variables of an object needs memory to hold it, and this is what the step __new__ would do.
__init__ initialize the internal variables of the object to specific values (could be default).
Referring to this doc:
When subclassing immutable built-in types like numbers and strings,
and occasionally in other situations, the static method __new__ comes
in handy. __new__ is the first step in instance construction, invoked
before __init__.
The __new__ method is called with the class as its
first argument; its responsibility is to return a new instance of that
class.
Compare this to __init__: __init__ is called with an instance
as its first argument, and it doesn't return anything; its
responsibility is to initialize the instance.
There are situations
where a new instance is created without calling __init__ (for example
when the instance is loaded from a pickle). There is no way to create
a new instance without calling __new__ (although in some cases you can
get away with calling a base class's __new__).
Regarding what you wish to achieve, there also in same doc info about Singleton pattern
class Singleton(object):
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwds):
it = cls.__dict__.get("__it__")
if it is not None:
return it
cls.__it__ = it = object.__new__(cls)
it.init(*args, **kwds)
return it
def init(self, *args, **kwds):
pass
you may also use this implementation from PEP 318, using a decorator
def singleton(cls):
instances = {}
def getinstance():
if cls not in instances:
instances[cls] = cls()
return instances[cls]
return getinstance
#singleton
class MyClass:
...
Now I've got the same problem, and for some reasons I decided to avoid decorators, factories and metaclasses. I did it like this:
Main file
def _alt(func):
import functools
#functools.wraps(func)
def init(self, *p, **k):
if hasattr(self, "parent_initialized"):
return
else:
self.parent_initialized = True
func(self, *p, **k)
return init
class Parent:
# Empty dictionary, shouldn't ever be filled with anything else
parent_cache = {}
def __new__(cls, n, *args, **kwargs):
# Checks if object with this ID (n) has been created
if n in cls.parent_cache:
# It was, return it
return cls.parent_cache[n]
else:
# Check if it was modified by this function
if not hasattr(cls, "parent_modified"):
# Add the attribute
cls.parent_modified = True
cls.parent_cache = {}
# Apply it
cls.__init__ = _alt(cls.__init__)
# Get the instance
obj = super().__new__(cls)
# Push it to cache
cls.parent_cache[n] = obj
# Return it
return obj
Example classes
class A(Parent):
def __init__(self, n):
print("A.__init__", n)
class B(Parent):
def __init__(self, n):
print("B.__init__", n)
In use
>>> A(1)
A.__init__ 1 # First A(1) initialized
<__main__.A object at 0x000001A73A4A2E48>
>>> A(1) # Returned previous A(1)
<__main__.A object at 0x000001A73A4A2E48>
>>> A(2)
A.__init__ 2 # First A(2) initialized
<__main__.A object at 0x000001A7395D9C88>
>>> B(2)
B.__init__ 2 # B class doesn't collide with A, thanks to separate cache
<__main__.B object at 0x000001A73951B080>
Warning: You shouldn't initialize Parent, it will collide with other classes - unless you defined separate cache in each of the children, that's not what we want.
Warning: It seems a class with Parent as grandparent behaves weird. [Unverified]
Try it online!
The __init__ is called after __new__ so that when you override it in a subclass, your added code will still get called.
If you are trying to subclass a class that already has a __new__, someone unaware of this might start by adapting the __init__ and forwarding the call down to the subclass __init__. This convention of calling __init__ after __new__ helps that work as expected.
The __init__ still needs to allow for any parameters the superclass __new__ needed, but failing to do so will usually create a clear runtime error. And the __new__ should probably explicitly allow for *args and '**kw', to make it clear that extension is OK.
It is generally bad form to have both __new__ and __init__ in the same class at the same level of inheritance, because of the behavior the original poster described.
However, I'm a bit confused as to why __init__ is always called after __new__.
Not much of a reason other than that it just is done that way. __new__ doesn't have the responsibility of initializing the class, some other method does (__call__, possibly-- I don't know for sure).
I wasn't expecting this. Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how I implement this functionality otherwise? (apart from putting the implementation into the __new__ which feels quite hacky).
You could have __init__ do nothing if it's already been initialized, or you could write a new metaclass with a new __call__ that only calls __init__ on new instances, and otherwise just returns __new__(...).
The simple reason is that the new is used for creating an instance, while init is used for initializing the instance. Before initializing, the instance should be created first. That's why new should be called before init.
When instantiating a class, first, __new__() is called to create the instance of a class, then __init__() is called to initialize the instance.
__new__():
Called to create a new instance of class cls. ...
If __new__() is invoked during object construction and it returns an
instance of cls, then the new instance’s __init__() method will be
invoked like __init__(self[, ...]), ...
__init__():
Called after the instance has been created (by __new__()), ...
Because __new__() and __init__() work together in constructing objects
(__new__() to create it, and __init__() to customize it), ...
For example, when instantiating Teacher class, first, __new__() is called to create the instance of Teacher class, then __init__() is called to initialize the instance as shown below:
class Teacher:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
class Student:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
obj = Teacher("John") # Instantiation
print(obj.name)
This is the output:
<class '__main__.Teacher'>
John
And, using __new__() of the instance of Teacher class, we can create the instance of Student class as shown below:
# ...
obj = Teacher("John")
print(type(obj))
print(obj.name)
obj = obj.__new__(Student) # Creates the instance of "Student" class
print(type(obj))
Now, the instance of Student class is created as shown below:
<class '__main__.Teacher'>
<__main__.Teacher object at 0x7f4e3950bf10>
<class '__main__.Student'> # Here
Next, if we try to get the value of name variable from **the instance of Student class as shown below:
obj = Teacher("John")
print(type(obj))
print(obj.name)
obj = obj.__new__(Student)
print(type(obj))
print(obj.name) # Tries to get the value of "name" variable
The error below occurs because the instance of Student class has not been initialized by __init__() yet:
AttributeError: 'Student' object has no attribute 'name'
So, we initialize the instance of Student class as shown below:
obj = Teacher("John")
print(type(obj))
print(obj.name)
obj = obj.__new__(Student)
print(type(obj))
obj.__init__("Tom") # Initializes the instance of "Student" class
print(obj.name)
Then, we can get the value of name variable from the instance of Student class as shown below:
<class '__main__.Teacher'>
John
<class '__main__.Student'>
Tom # Here
People have already detailed the question and answer both use some examples like singleton etc. See the code below:
__instance = None
def __new__(cls):
if cls.__instance is None:
cls.__instance = object.__new__(cls)
return cls.__instance
I got the above code from this link, it has detailed overview of new vs init. Worth reading!
Recent I study Python,but I have a question about __slots__. In my opinion, it is for limiting parameters in Class, but also limiting the method in Class?
For example:
from types import MethodType
Class Student(object):
__slots__=('name','age')
When I run the code:
def set_age(self,age):
self.age=age
stu=Student()
stu.set_age=MethodType(set_age,stu,Student)
print stu.age
An error has occurred:
stu.set_age=MethodType(set_age,stu,Student)
AttributeError: 'Student' object has no attribute 'set_age'
I want to know, why not use set_age for this class?
Using __slots__ means you don't get a __dict__ with each class instance, and so each instance is more lightweight. The downside is that you cannot modify the methods and cannot add attributes. And you cannot do what you attempted to do, which is to add methods (which would be adding attributes).
Also, the pythonic approach is not to instantiate a MethodType, but to simply create the function in the class namespace. If you're attempting to add or modify the function on the fly, as in monkey-patching, then you simply assign the function to the class, as in:
Student.set_age = set_age
Assigning it to the instance, of course, you can't do if it uses __slots__.
Here's the __slots__ docs:
https://docs.python.org/2/reference/datamodel.html#slots
In new style classes, methods are not instance attributes. Instead, they're class attributes that follow the descriptor protocol by defining a __get__ method. The method call obj.some_method(arg) is equivalent to obj.__class__.method.__get__(obj)(arg), which is in turn, equivalent to obj.__class__.method(obj, arg). The __get__ implementation does the instance binding (sticking obj in as the first argument to method when it is called).
In your example code, you're instead trying to put a hand-bound method as an instance variable of the already-existing instance. This doesn't work because your __slots__ declaration prevents you from adding new instance attributes. However, if you wrote to the class instead, you'd have no problem:
class Foo(object):
__slots__ = () # no instance variables!
def some_method(self, arg):
print(arg)
Foo.some_method = some_method # this works!
f = Foo()
f.some_method() # so does this
This code would also work if you created the instance before adding the method to its class.
Your attribute indeed doesn't have an attribute set_age since you didn't create a slot for it. What did you expect?
Also, it should be __slots__ not __slots (I imagine this is right in your actual code, otherwise you wouldn't be getting the error you're getting).
Why aren't you just using:
class Student(object):
__slots__ = ('name','age')
def set_age(self,age):
self.age = age
where set_age is a method of the Student class rather than adding the function as a method to an instance of the Student class.
Instead of __slots__, I'm using the following method. It allow the use of only a predefined set of parameters:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.__dict__['a']=''
self.__dict__['b']=''
def __getattr__(self,name):
d=getattr(self,'__dict__')
if d.keys().__contains__(name):
return d.__dict__[attr]
else:
raise AttributeError
def __setattr__(self,name,value):
d=getattr(self,'__dict__')
if d.keys().__contains__(name):
d[name] = value
else:
raise AttributeError
The use of getattr(..) is to avoid recursion.
There are some merits usin __slots__ vs __dict__ in term of memory and perhaps speed but this is easy to implement and read.
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.