I have a class which contains data as attributes and which has a method to return a tuple containing these attributes:
class myclass(object):
def __init__(self,a,b,c):
self.a = a
self.b = b
self.c = c
def tuple(self):
return (self.a, self.b, self.c)
I use this class essentially as a tuple where the items (attributes) can be modified/read through their attribute name. Now I would like to create objects of this class, which would be constants and have pre-defined attribute values, which I could then assign to a variable/mutable object, thereby initializing this variable object's attributes to match the constant object, while at the same time retaining the ability to modify the attributes' values. For example I would like to do this:
constant_object = myclass(1,2,3)
variable_object = constant_object
variable_object.a = 999
Now of course this doesn't work in python, so I am wondering what is the best way to get this kind of functionality?
Now I would like to create objects of this class, which would be constants and have pre-defined attribute values, which I could then assign to a variable/mutable object, thereby initializing this variable object's attributes to match the constant object,
Well, you can't have that. Assignment in Python doesn't initialize anything. It doesn't copy or create anything. All it does is give a new name to the existing value.
If you want to initialize an object, the way to do that in Python is to call the constructor.
So, with your existing code:
new_object = myclass(old_object.a, old_object.b, old_object.c)
If you look at most built-in and stdlib classes, it's a lot more convenient. For example:
a = set([1, 2, 3])
b = set(a)
How do they do that? Simple. Just define an __init__ method that can be called with an existing instance. (In the case of set, this comes for free, because a set can be initialized with any iterable, and sets are iterable.)
If you don't want to give up your existing design, you're going to need a pretty clumsy __init__, but it's at least doable. Maybe this:
_sentinel = object()
def __init__(myclass_or_a, b=_sentinel, c=_sentinel):
if isinstance(a, myclass):
self.a, self.b, self.c = myclass_or_a.a, myclass_or_a.b, myclass_or_a.c
else:
self.a, self.b, self.c = myclass_or_a, b, c
… plus some error handling to check that b is _sentinel in the first case and that it isn't in the other case.
So, however you do it:
constant_object = myclass(1,2,3)
variable_object = myclass(constant_object)
variable_object.a = 999
import copy
class myclass(object):
def __init__(self,a,b,c):
self.a = a
self.b = b
self.c = c
def tuple(self):
return (self.a, self.b, self.c)
constant_object = myclass(1,2,3)
variable_object = copy.deepcopy(constant_object)
variable_object.a = 999
print constant_object.a
print variable_object.a
Output:
1
999
Deepcopying is not entirely necessary in this case, because of the way you've setup your tuple method
class myclass(object):
def __init__(self,a,b,c):
self.a = a
self.b = b
self.c = c
def tuple(self):
return (self.a, self.b, self.c)
constant_object = myclass(1,2,3)
variable_object = myclass(*constant_object.tuple())
variable_object.a = 999
>>> constant_object.a
1
>>> variable_object.a
999
Usually (as others have suggested), you'd want to deepcopy. This creates a brand new object, with no ties to the object being copied. However, given that you are using only ints, deepcopy is overkill. You're better off doing a shallow copy. As a matter of fact, it might even be faster to call the class constructor on the parameters of the object you already have, seeing as these parameters are ints. This is why I suggested the above code.
Related
Is there any meaningful distinction between:
class A(object):
foo = 5 # some default value
vs.
class B(object):
def __init__(self, foo=5):
self.foo = foo
If you're creating a lot of instances, is there any difference in performance or space requirements for the two styles? When you read the code, do you consider the meaning of the two styles to be significantly different?
There is a significant semantic difference (beyond performance considerations):
when the attribute is defined on the instance (which is what we usually do), there can be multiple objects referred to. Each gets a totally separate version of that attribute.
when the attribute is defined on the class, there is only one underlying object referred to, so if operations on different instances of that class both attempt to set/(append/extend/insert/etc.) the attribute, then:
if the attribute is a builtin type (like int, float, boolean, string), operations on one object will overwrite (clobber) the value
if the attribute is a mutable type (like a list or a dict), we will get unwanted leakage.
For example:
>>> class A: foo = []
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo.append(5)
>>> b.foo
[5]
>>> class A:
... def __init__(self): self.foo = []
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo.append(5)
>>> b.foo
[]
The difference is that the attribute on the class is shared by all instances. The attribute on an instance is unique to that instance.
If coming from C++, attributes on the class are more like static member variables.
Here is a very good post, and summary it as below.
class Bar(object):
## No need for dot syntax
class_var = 1
def __init__(self, i_var):
self.i_var = i_var
## Need dot syntax as we've left scope of class namespace
Bar.class_var
## 1
foo = MyClass(2)
## Finds i_var in foo's instance namespace
foo.i_var
## 2
## Doesn't find class_var in instance namespace…
## So look's in class namespace (Bar.__dict__)
foo.class_var
## 1
And in visual form
Class attribute assignment
If a class attribute is set by accessing the class, it will override the value for all instances
foo = Bar(2)
foo.class_var
## 1
Bar.class_var = 2
foo.class_var
## 2
If a class variable is set by accessing an instance, it will override the value only for that instance. This essentially overrides the class variable and turns it into an instance variable available, intuitively, only for that instance.
foo = Bar(2)
foo.class_var
## 1
foo.class_var = 2
foo.class_var
## 2
Bar.class_var
## 1
When would you use class attribute?
Storing constants. As class attributes can be accessed as attributes of the class itself, it’s often nice to use them for storing Class-wide, Class-specific constants
class Circle(object):
pi = 3.14159
def __init__(self, radius):
self.radius = radius
def area(self):
return Circle.pi * self.radius * self.radius
Circle.pi
## 3.14159
c = Circle(10)
c.pi
## 3.14159
c.area()
## 314.159
Defining default values. As a trivial example, we might create a bounded list (i.e., a list that can only hold a certain number of elements or fewer) and choose to have a default cap of 10 items
class MyClass(object):
limit = 10
def __init__(self):
self.data = []
def item(self, i):
return self.data[i]
def add(self, e):
if len(self.data) >= self.limit:
raise Exception("Too many elements")
self.data.append(e)
MyClass.limit
## 10
Since people in the comments here and in two other questions marked as dups all appear to be confused about this in the same way, I think it's worth adding an additional answer on top of Alex Coventry's.
The fact that Alex is assigning a value of a mutable type, like a list, has nothing to do with whether things are shared or not. We can see this with the id function or the is operator:
>>> class A: foo = object()
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo is b.foo
True
>>> class A:
... def __init__(self): self.foo = object()
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo is b.foo
False
(If you're wondering why I used object() instead of, say, 5, that's to avoid running into two whole other issues which I don't want to get into here; for two different reasons, entirely separately-created 5s can end up being the same instance of the number 5. But entirely separately-created object()s cannot.)
So, why is it that a.foo.append(5) in Alex's example affects b.foo, but a.foo = 5 in my example doesn't? Well, try a.foo = 5 in Alex's example, and notice that it doesn't affect b.foo there either.
a.foo = 5 is just making a.foo into a name for 5. That doesn't affect b.foo, or any other name for the old value that a.foo used to refer to.* It's a little tricky that we're creating an instance attribute that hides a class attribute,** but once you get that, nothing complicated is happening here.
Hopefully it's now obvious why Alex used a list: the fact that you can mutate a list means it's easier to show that two variables name the same list, and also means it's more important in real-life code to know whether you have two lists or two names for the same list.
* The confusion for people coming from a language like C++ is that in Python, values aren't stored in variables. Values live off in value-land, on their own, variables are just names for values, and assignment just creates a new name for a value. If it helps, think of each Python variable as a shared_ptr<T> instead of a T.
** Some people take advantage of this by using a class attribute as a "default value" for an instance attribute that instances may or may not set. This can be useful in some cases, but it can also be confusing, so be careful with it.
There is one more situation.
Class and instance attributes is Descriptor.
# -*- encoding: utf-8 -*-
class RevealAccess(object):
def __init__(self, initval=None, name='var'):
self.val = initval
self.name = name
def __get__(self, obj, objtype):
return self.val
class Base(object):
attr_1 = RevealAccess(10, 'var "x"')
def __init__(self):
self.attr_2 = RevealAccess(10, 'var "x"')
def main():
b = Base()
print("Access to class attribute, return: ", Base.attr_1)
print("Access to instance attribute, return: ", b.attr_2)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Above will output:
('Access to class attribute, return: ', 10)
('Access to instance attribute, return: ', <__main__.RevealAccess object at 0x10184eb50>)
The same type of instance access through class or instance return different result!
And i found in c.PyObject_GenericGetAttr definition，and a great post.
Explain
If the attribute is found in the dictionary of the classes which make up.
the objects MRO, then check to see if the attribute being looked up points to a Data Descriptor (which is nothing more that a class implementing both the __get__ and the __set__ methods).
If it does, resolve the attribute lookup by calling the __get__ method of the Data Descriptor (lines 28–33).
Is there any meaningful distinction between:
class A(object):
foo = 5 # some default value
vs.
class B(object):
def __init__(self, foo=5):
self.foo = foo
If you're creating a lot of instances, is there any difference in performance or space requirements for the two styles? When you read the code, do you consider the meaning of the two styles to be significantly different?
There is a significant semantic difference (beyond performance considerations):
when the attribute is defined on the instance (which is what we usually do), there can be multiple objects referred to. Each gets a totally separate version of that attribute.
when the attribute is defined on the class, there is only one underlying object referred to, so if operations on different instances of that class both attempt to set/(append/extend/insert/etc.) the attribute, then:
if the attribute is a builtin type (like int, float, boolean, string), operations on one object will overwrite (clobber) the value
if the attribute is a mutable type (like a list or a dict), we will get unwanted leakage.
For example:
>>> class A: foo = []
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo.append(5)
>>> b.foo
[5]
>>> class A:
... def __init__(self): self.foo = []
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo.append(5)
>>> b.foo
[]
The difference is that the attribute on the class is shared by all instances. The attribute on an instance is unique to that instance.
If coming from C++, attributes on the class are more like static member variables.
Here is a very good post, and summary it as below.
class Bar(object):
## No need for dot syntax
class_var = 1
def __init__(self, i_var):
self.i_var = i_var
## Need dot syntax as we've left scope of class namespace
Bar.class_var
## 1
foo = MyClass(2)
## Finds i_var in foo's instance namespace
foo.i_var
## 2
## Doesn't find class_var in instance namespace…
## So look's in class namespace (Bar.__dict__)
foo.class_var
## 1
And in visual form
Class attribute assignment
If a class attribute is set by accessing the class, it will override the value for all instances
foo = Bar(2)
foo.class_var
## 1
Bar.class_var = 2
foo.class_var
## 2
If a class variable is set by accessing an instance, it will override the value only for that instance. This essentially overrides the class variable and turns it into an instance variable available, intuitively, only for that instance.
foo = Bar(2)
foo.class_var
## 1
foo.class_var = 2
foo.class_var
## 2
Bar.class_var
## 1
When would you use class attribute?
Storing constants. As class attributes can be accessed as attributes of the class itself, it’s often nice to use them for storing Class-wide, Class-specific constants
class Circle(object):
pi = 3.14159
def __init__(self, radius):
self.radius = radius
def area(self):
return Circle.pi * self.radius * self.radius
Circle.pi
## 3.14159
c = Circle(10)
c.pi
## 3.14159
c.area()
## 314.159
Defining default values. As a trivial example, we might create a bounded list (i.e., a list that can only hold a certain number of elements or fewer) and choose to have a default cap of 10 items
class MyClass(object):
limit = 10
def __init__(self):
self.data = []
def item(self, i):
return self.data[i]
def add(self, e):
if len(self.data) >= self.limit:
raise Exception("Too many elements")
self.data.append(e)
MyClass.limit
## 10
Since people in the comments here and in two other questions marked as dups all appear to be confused about this in the same way, I think it's worth adding an additional answer on top of Alex Coventry's.
The fact that Alex is assigning a value of a mutable type, like a list, has nothing to do with whether things are shared or not. We can see this with the id function or the is operator:
>>> class A: foo = object()
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo is b.foo
True
>>> class A:
... def __init__(self): self.foo = object()
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo is b.foo
False
(If you're wondering why I used object() instead of, say, 5, that's to avoid running into two whole other issues which I don't want to get into here; for two different reasons, entirely separately-created 5s can end up being the same instance of the number 5. But entirely separately-created object()s cannot.)
So, why is it that a.foo.append(5) in Alex's example affects b.foo, but a.foo = 5 in my example doesn't? Well, try a.foo = 5 in Alex's example, and notice that it doesn't affect b.foo there either.
a.foo = 5 is just making a.foo into a name for 5. That doesn't affect b.foo, or any other name for the old value that a.foo used to refer to.* It's a little tricky that we're creating an instance attribute that hides a class attribute,** but once you get that, nothing complicated is happening here.
Hopefully it's now obvious why Alex used a list: the fact that you can mutate a list means it's easier to show that two variables name the same list, and also means it's more important in real-life code to know whether you have two lists or two names for the same list.
* The confusion for people coming from a language like C++ is that in Python, values aren't stored in variables. Values live off in value-land, on their own, variables are just names for values, and assignment just creates a new name for a value. If it helps, think of each Python variable as a shared_ptr<T> instead of a T.
** Some people take advantage of this by using a class attribute as a "default value" for an instance attribute that instances may or may not set. This can be useful in some cases, but it can also be confusing, so be careful with it.
There is one more situation.
Class and instance attributes is Descriptor.
# -*- encoding: utf-8 -*-
class RevealAccess(object):
def __init__(self, initval=None, name='var'):
self.val = initval
self.name = name
def __get__(self, obj, objtype):
return self.val
class Base(object):
attr_1 = RevealAccess(10, 'var "x"')
def __init__(self):
self.attr_2 = RevealAccess(10, 'var "x"')
def main():
b = Base()
print("Access to class attribute, return: ", Base.attr_1)
print("Access to instance attribute, return: ", b.attr_2)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Above will output:
('Access to class attribute, return: ', 10)
('Access to instance attribute, return: ', <__main__.RevealAccess object at 0x10184eb50>)
The same type of instance access through class or instance return different result!
And i found in c.PyObject_GenericGetAttr definition，and a great post.
Explain
If the attribute is found in the dictionary of the classes which make up.
the objects MRO, then check to see if the attribute being looked up points to a Data Descriptor (which is nothing more that a class implementing both the __get__ and the __set__ methods).
If it does, resolve the attribute lookup by calling the __get__ method of the Data Descriptor (lines 28–33).
I am making a constructor in Python. When called with an existing object as its input, it should set the "new" object to that same object. Here is a 10 line demonstration:
class A:
def __init__(self, value):
if isinstance(value, A):
self = value
else:
self.attribute = value
a = A(1)
b = A(a)#a and b should be references to the same object
print("b is a", b is a)#this should be true: the identities should be the same
print("b == a", b == a)#this should be true: the values should be the same
I want the object A(a) constructed from the existing object a to be a. Why is it not? To be clear, I want A(a) to reference the same object as a, NOT a copy.
self, like any other argument, is among the local variables of a function or method. Assignment to the bare name of a local variable never affects anything outside of that function or method, it just locally rebinds that name.
As a comment rightly suggests, it's unclear why you wouldn't just do
b = a
Assuming you have a sound reason, what you need to override is not __init__, but rather __new__ (then take some precaution in __init__ to avoid double initialization). It's not an obvious course so I'll wait for you to explain what exactly you're trying to accomplish.
Added: having clarified the need I agree with the OP that a factory function (ideally, I suggest, as a class method) is better -- and clearer than __new__, which would work (it is a class method after all) but in a less-sharply-clear way.
So, I would code as follows:
class A(object):
#classmethod
def make(cls, value):
if isinstance(value, cls): return value
return cls(value)
def __init__(self, value):
self.attribute = value
Now,
a = A.make(1)
b = A.make(a)
accomplishes the OP's desires, polymorphically over the type of argument passed to A.make.
The only way to make it work exactly as you have it is to implement __new__, the constructor, rather than __init__, the initialiser (the behaviour can get rather complex if both are implemented). It would also be wise to implement __eq__ for equality comparison, although this will fall back to identity comparison. For example:
>>> class A(object):
def __new__(cls, value):
if isinstance(value, cls):
return value
inst = super(A, cls).__new__(cls)
inst.attribute = value
return inst
def __eq__(self, other):
return self.attribute == other.attribute
>>> a = A(1)
>>> b = A(a)
>>> a is b
True
>>> a == b
True
>>> a == A(1)
True # also equal to other instance with same attribute value
You should have a look at the data model documentation, which explains the various "magic methods" available and what they do. See e.g. __new__.
__init__ is an initializer, not a constructor. You would have to mess around with __new__ to do what you want, and it's probably not a good idea to go there.
Try
a = b = A(1)
instead.
If you call a constructor, it's going to create a new object. The simplest thing is to do what hacatu suggested and simply assign b to a's value. If not, perhaps you could have an if statement checking if the value passed in is equal to the object you want referenced and if it is, simply return that item before ever calling the constructor. I haven't tested so I'm not sure if it'd work.
I want B to be a subclass of some class A, and I want to override A.__new__1. Typically, my code for this would have this basic structure:
class B(A):
def __new__(cls, ...):
ret = super(B, cls).__new__(cls, ...)
# modify ret as needed
return ret # type(ret) is cls
# ...
In this way, type(B(...)) is indeed B. (Note: the ellipses in super(B, cls).__new__(cls, ...) need not represent the same items as those represented by the ellipses in B.__new__'s signature.)
But suppose now that I want to use the value returned by some factory method/function A_Factory (which returns an object of type A) as the starting value for the variable ret in the constructor. If I simply coded this:
class B(A):
def __new__(cls, ...):
ret = A_Factory(...)
# modify ret as needed
return ret # type(ret) is A
...then type(B(...)) would be A, not B.
What's the correct way to set class of ret in the second version of B.__new__ above so that, type(B(...)) is B, and, more generally, so that, for any direct or indirect subclass C of B, type(C(...)) is C?
1 I know that one normally does not need to override a parent class's __new__, but here I'm interested in the uncommon case where one needs to.
You can set the __class__ attribute of the instance to be the cls passed into __new__:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.x = 2
def A_Factory():
return A()
class B(A):
def __new__(cls):
ret = A_Factory()
ret.__class__ = cls # Override the class.
return ret # type(ret) is cls
class C(B):
pass
if __name__ == "__main__":
b = B()
print(b.x)
print(type(b))
print(isinstance(b, B))
print(isinstance(b, A))
c = C()
print(type(C))
Output:
2
<class '__main__.B'>
True
True
<class '__main__.C'>
There are some limitations to this, though. The commit that added the ability to assign to __class__ lists them:
Make __class__ assignment possible, when the object structures are the
same. I hope the test for structural equivalence is stringent enough.
It only allows the assignment if the old and new types:
have the same basic size
have the same item size
have the same dict offset
have the same weaklist offset
have the same GC flag bit
have a common base that is the same except for maybe the dict and weaklist (which may have been added separately at the same offsets
in both types)
They also need to have the identical __slots__, if you have that defined on either class. In practice, this usually just means that both classes need to be implemented in Python. Trying to do it with a regular Python class and int or tuple or something else implemented in C isn't likely to work.
Is there any meaningful distinction between:
class A(object):
foo = 5 # some default value
vs.
class B(object):
def __init__(self, foo=5):
self.foo = foo
If you're creating a lot of instances, is there any difference in performance or space requirements for the two styles? When you read the code, do you consider the meaning of the two styles to be significantly different?
There is a significant semantic difference (beyond performance considerations):
when the attribute is defined on the instance (which is what we usually do), there can be multiple objects referred to. Each gets a totally separate version of that attribute.
when the attribute is defined on the class, there is only one underlying object referred to, so if operations on different instances of that class both attempt to set/(append/extend/insert/etc.) the attribute, then:
if the attribute is a builtin type (like int, float, boolean, string), operations on one object will overwrite (clobber) the value
if the attribute is a mutable type (like a list or a dict), we will get unwanted leakage.
For example:
>>> class A: foo = []
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo.append(5)
>>> b.foo
[5]
>>> class A:
... def __init__(self): self.foo = []
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo.append(5)
>>> b.foo
[]
The difference is that the attribute on the class is shared by all instances. The attribute on an instance is unique to that instance.
If coming from C++, attributes on the class are more like static member variables.
Here is a very good post, and summary it as below.
class Bar(object):
## No need for dot syntax
class_var = 1
def __init__(self, i_var):
self.i_var = i_var
## Need dot syntax as we've left scope of class namespace
Bar.class_var
## 1
foo = MyClass(2)
## Finds i_var in foo's instance namespace
foo.i_var
## 2
## Doesn't find class_var in instance namespace…
## So look's in class namespace (Bar.__dict__)
foo.class_var
## 1
And in visual form
Class attribute assignment
If a class attribute is set by accessing the class, it will override the value for all instances
foo = Bar(2)
foo.class_var
## 1
Bar.class_var = 2
foo.class_var
## 2
If a class variable is set by accessing an instance, it will override the value only for that instance. This essentially overrides the class variable and turns it into an instance variable available, intuitively, only for that instance.
foo = Bar(2)
foo.class_var
## 1
foo.class_var = 2
foo.class_var
## 2
Bar.class_var
## 1
When would you use class attribute?
Storing constants. As class attributes can be accessed as attributes of the class itself, it’s often nice to use them for storing Class-wide, Class-specific constants
class Circle(object):
pi = 3.14159
def __init__(self, radius):
self.radius = radius
def area(self):
return Circle.pi * self.radius * self.radius
Circle.pi
## 3.14159
c = Circle(10)
c.pi
## 3.14159
c.area()
## 314.159
Defining default values. As a trivial example, we might create a bounded list (i.e., a list that can only hold a certain number of elements or fewer) and choose to have a default cap of 10 items
class MyClass(object):
limit = 10
def __init__(self):
self.data = []
def item(self, i):
return self.data[i]
def add(self, e):
if len(self.data) >= self.limit:
raise Exception("Too many elements")
self.data.append(e)
MyClass.limit
## 10
Since people in the comments here and in two other questions marked as dups all appear to be confused about this in the same way, I think it's worth adding an additional answer on top of Alex Coventry's.
The fact that Alex is assigning a value of a mutable type, like a list, has nothing to do with whether things are shared or not. We can see this with the id function or the is operator:
>>> class A: foo = object()
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo is b.foo
True
>>> class A:
... def __init__(self): self.foo = object()
>>> a, b = A(), A()
>>> a.foo is b.foo
False
(If you're wondering why I used object() instead of, say, 5, that's to avoid running into two whole other issues which I don't want to get into here; for two different reasons, entirely separately-created 5s can end up being the same instance of the number 5. But entirely separately-created object()s cannot.)
So, why is it that a.foo.append(5) in Alex's example affects b.foo, but a.foo = 5 in my example doesn't? Well, try a.foo = 5 in Alex's example, and notice that it doesn't affect b.foo there either.
a.foo = 5 is just making a.foo into a name for 5. That doesn't affect b.foo, or any other name for the old value that a.foo used to refer to.* It's a little tricky that we're creating an instance attribute that hides a class attribute,** but once you get that, nothing complicated is happening here.
Hopefully it's now obvious why Alex used a list: the fact that you can mutate a list means it's easier to show that two variables name the same list, and also means it's more important in real-life code to know whether you have two lists or two names for the same list.
* The confusion for people coming from a language like C++ is that in Python, values aren't stored in variables. Values live off in value-land, on their own, variables are just names for values, and assignment just creates a new name for a value. If it helps, think of each Python variable as a shared_ptr<T> instead of a T.
** Some people take advantage of this by using a class attribute as a "default value" for an instance attribute that instances may or may not set. This can be useful in some cases, but it can also be confusing, so be careful with it.
There is one more situation.
Class and instance attributes is Descriptor.
# -*- encoding: utf-8 -*-
class RevealAccess(object):
def __init__(self, initval=None, name='var'):
self.val = initval
self.name = name
def __get__(self, obj, objtype):
return self.val
class Base(object):
attr_1 = RevealAccess(10, 'var "x"')
def __init__(self):
self.attr_2 = RevealAccess(10, 'var "x"')
def main():
b = Base()
print("Access to class attribute, return: ", Base.attr_1)
print("Access to instance attribute, return: ", b.attr_2)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Above will output:
('Access to class attribute, return: ', 10)
('Access to instance attribute, return: ', <__main__.RevealAccess object at 0x10184eb50>)
The same type of instance access through class or instance return different result!
And i found in c.PyObject_GenericGetAttr definition，and a great post.
Explain
If the attribute is found in the dictionary of the classes which make up.
the objects MRO, then check to see if the attribute being looked up points to a Data Descriptor (which is nothing more that a class implementing both the __get__ and the __set__ methods).
If it does, resolve the attribute lookup by calling the __get__ method of the Data Descriptor (lines 28–33).