Develop Reference

Python - Class object as function argument: Object only - Class not in argument

I am trying to write a function taking a string as an argument and using this argument as a class object.
Note that my explanantion might be strangely formulated sice I could not find an answer online. The MWE below should clarify what I mean, the problematic line is indicated.
Edit: in the MWE, "print" is an example. I need to be able to call the object to update it, print it or, in the case of a list, append to it. I need access to the object itself, not the value of the object.
MWE
# Create a class
class myClass():
def __init__(self):
self.one = "Test"
self.two = "Plop"
# Define function
def myFunction (parameter):
print(myObject.parameter)##### This line is currently not possible.
# Use class
myObject = myClass()
# Use function
myFunction("one")
I am not trying to append a new object to the class, only to call an existing object.
Is this even possible?

Looks like you need the built-in function called getattr
my_object = myClass()
def my_function(parameter):
print(getattr(my_object, parameter, None))
also this is not the best practice to call objects from outer scope like that. i'd suggest to use dict magic methods:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self):
self.one = "Test"
self.two = "Plop"
def __getitem__(self, parameter):
return getattr(self, parameter, None)
def __setitem__(self, parameter, value):
return setattr(self, parameter, value)
my_obj = MyClass()
parameter = "x"
print(my_obj[parameter])
my_obj[parameter] = "test"
print(my_obj.x)

You need to use getarttr():
# Create a class
class myClass():
def __init__(self):
self.one = "Test"
self.two = "Plop"
# Use class
myObject = myClass()
# Define function
def myFunction(parameter):
print(getattr(myObject, parameter))##### This line is currently possible.
# Use function
myFunction("one")

Simple Question : about python class parenthesis

Look at the code below.
class A :
def __init__(self, a = "Hello") :
self.a = a
print(A().a) # 1
print(A.a) # 2
1 is not error
2 is error - AttributeError: type object 'A' has no attribute 'a'
What is the difference between the two results?

In your code A refers the the type of a class and also to its constructor/initialiser. A is called the class and when you construct an object of type A with the constructor you get an instance of that class.
A # Refers to the class A
A() # is an instance of class A
There is a difference between a class property and an instance property. Consider the following code:
class A:
propertyA = "hello"
def __init__(self, string="world"):
self.propertyB = string
In this snippet propertyA is a class property while propertyB is an instance property. Each instance of type A has its own propertyB and you must instantiate and object (an instance) first.
A.propertyA # Class property, does not need an instance
A().propertyB # instance property, needs an instance
In your code the constructor for A is the code written in the __init__. This code will be called when you type A(). Note that you specified a default value for the parameter a but if you don't you would call the constructor like this:
A("hello") # or:
A(a="hello")
Note that classes, instances and constructors are fundamentals of OOP (and by extension Python), you really should learn this, it avoids lots of basic errors.

You need to create an instance of the class first:
class A :
def __init__(self, a = "Hello") :
self.a = a
class_instance = A()
print(class_instance.a)
You can set the value of "a" when creating the instance by typing in the parenthesis:
class_instance = A("this is the value of a")
you can change the value after the creation like so:
class_instance.a = "New value of a"
A().a is creating an instance and returns the a value of the instance.
A.a cannot be executed because A is the Class name and doesn't have any attributes if you don't create an instance first

Python class inheritance - Base is modified by a subclass

Let's say I have a class called Test with an attribute items. Then I create a subclass called Best. Which has a method that modifies the classes attribute items. But it even modifies Test's items and I what it to modify items only for Best.
class Test():
items = []
class Best(Test):
def method(self):
type(self).items.append("a test")
>>> Best().method()
>>> Best.items
["a test"]
>>> Test.items
["a test"] # This is what I don't want.

You have declared items as an attribute of the superclass itself, so all instances of Test and it's subclasses will share the same list. Instead declare it in Test's __ init __ method, so there is one list per instance.
In Best, just append to self.items, and only the Best instance's list will be updated.
class Test(object):
def __ init __(self)
self.items = []
class Best(Test): # Best must inherit from Test
def method(self):
self.items.append("a test")

In Python you can get what you are asking by using "private" members...
class Base(object):
def __init__(self):
self.__mine = 42 # note the double underscore
def baseMethod(self):
return self.__mine
class Derived(Base):
def __init__(self):
Base.__init__(self)
self.__mine = 99
def derivedMethod(self):
return self.__mine
obj = Derived()
print(obj.baseMethod(), obj.derivedMethod()) ## ==> 42, 99
this works because at compile time Python will replace the name __mine with _Base__mine when compiling Base and with _Derived__mine when compiling Derived.
Note however that in Python while this is possible in my experience it's not used very often. Deriving a class in many cases is just not needed thanks to "duck typing" and to delegation, something that is not possible in languages like C++ or Java.

The only possible way to do this is to create a new items on the subclass -- where else is this new list meant to come from? Also type(self) is redundant. The lookup machinery looks up attributes on the class if it cannot find the attribute on the instance. Better yet, if you don't need an instance then declare the method to be a class method.
eg.
class Test:
items = []
#classmethod
def method_test(cls):
cls.items.append('test')
class Best(Test):
items = []
#classmethod
def method_best(cls):
cls.items.append('best')
Test.method_test()
assert Test.items == ['test']
assert Best.items == []
Test.items = []
Best.method_test()
Best.method_best()
assert Test.items == []
assert Best.items == ['test', 'best']
Note that method_test works on the Best class when called from the Best class.

Your Best class is modifying Test (which I assume it's supposed to be inheriting from) because Best doesn't have its own items list. When you access Best.items, you're accessing the list where it is inherited from (i.e. from Test class). If you want a different list, you need to create it explicitly in the subclass Best:
class Best(Test):
items = [] # hide the inherited list with our own list
# ...

Your code doesn't do what you describe.
For one thing, Best is not a subclass of Test.
For another Best.method() produces
NameError: name 'self' is not defined
items is a Test class attribute.
t = Test()
t.items.append(1)
changes Test.items.
As defined B.items gives an AttributeError.
Even if I change:
class Best():
def method(self):
...
Best.method() does not run; method is an instance method. I need to use Best().method(). But then I get the items AttributeError.
class Best(Test):
def method(self):
...
does what you desribe. Best().method() modifies the Test.items - because the Test class attribute is shared with the subclass.
As shown in other answers, simply defining items for Best decouples its value from the Test class attribute
class Best(Test):
items = ['other']
...

How can I dynamically create derived classes from a base class

For example I have a base class as follows:
class BaseClass(object):
def __init__(self, classtype):
self._type = classtype
From this class I derive several other classes, e.g.
class TestClass(BaseClass):
def __init__(self):
super(TestClass, self).__init__('Test')
class SpecialClass(BaseClass):
def __init__(self):
super(TestClass, self).__init__('Special')
Is there a nice, pythonic way to create those classes dynamically by a function call that puts the new class into my current scope, like:
foo(BaseClass, "My")
a = MyClass()
...
As there will be comments and questions why I need this: The derived classes all have the exact same internal structure with the difference, that the constructor takes a number of previously undefined arguments. So, for example, MyClass takes the keywords a while the constructor of class TestClass takes b and c.
inst1 = MyClass(a=4)
inst2 = MyClass(a=5)
inst3 = TestClass(b=False, c = "test")
But they should NEVER use the type of the class as input argument like
inst1 = BaseClass(classtype = "My", a=4)
I got this to work but would prefer the other way, i.e. dynamically created class objects.

This bit of code allows you to create new classes with dynamic
names and parameter names.
The parameter verification in __init__ just does not allow
unknown parameters, if you need other verifications, like
type, or that they are mandatory, just add the logic
there:
class BaseClass(object):
def __init__(self, classtype):
self._type = classtype
def ClassFactory(name, argnames, BaseClass=BaseClass):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
for key, value in kwargs.items():
# here, the argnames variable is the one passed to the
# ClassFactory call
if key not in argnames:
raise TypeError("Argument %s not valid for %s"
% (key, self.__class__.__name__))
setattr(self, key, value)
BaseClass.__init__(self, name[:-len("Class")])
newclass = type(name, (BaseClass,),{"__init__": __init__})
return newclass
And this works like this, for example:
>>> SpecialClass = ClassFactory("SpecialClass", "a b c".split())
>>> s = SpecialClass(a=2)
>>> s.a
2
>>> s2 = SpecialClass(d=3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 8, in __init__
TypeError: Argument d not valid for SpecialClass
I see you are asking for inserting the dynamic names in the naming scope --
now, that is not considered a good practice in Python - you either have
variable names, known at coding time, or data - and names learned in runtime
are more "data" than "variables" -
So, you could just add your classes to a dictionary and use them from there:
name = "SpecialClass"
classes = {}
classes[name] = ClassFactory(name, params)
instance = classes[name](...)
And if your design absolutely needs the names to come in scope,
just do the same, but use the dictionary returned by the globals()
call instead of an arbitrary dictionary:
name = "SpecialClass"
globals()[name] = ClassFactory(name, params)
instance = SpecialClass(...)
(It indeed would be possible for the class factory function to insert the name dynamically on the global scope of the caller - but that is even worse practice, and is not compatible across Python implementations. The way to do that would be to get the caller's execution frame, through sys._getframe(1) and setting the class name in the frame's global dictionary in its f_globals attribute).
update, tl;dr: This answer had become popular, still its very specific to the question body. The general answer on how to
"dynamically create derived classes from a base class"
in Python is a simple call to type passing the new class name, a tuple with the baseclass(es) and the __dict__ body for the new class -like this:
>>> new_class = type("NewClassName", (BaseClass,), {"new_method": lambda self: ...})
update
Anyone needing this should also check the dill project - it claims to be able to pickle and unpickle classes just like pickle does to ordinary objects, and had lived to it in some of my tests.

type() is the function that creates classes and in particular sub-classes, like in the question:
def set_x(self, value):
self.x = value
# type() takes as argument the new class name, its base
# classes, and its attributes:
SubClass = type('SubClass', (BaseClass,), {'set_x': set_x})
# (More methods can be put in SubClass, including __init__().)
obj = SubClass()
obj.set_x(42)
print obj.x # Prints 42
print isinstance(obj, BaseClass) # True

In my case :
inst3 = globals()["SpecialClass"](b=False, c = "test")

To create a class with a dynamic attribute value, checkout the code below.
NB. This are code snippets in python programming language
def create_class(attribute_data, **more_data): # define a function with required attributes
class ClassCreated(optional extensions): # define class with optional inheritance
attribute1 = adattribute_data # set class attributes with function parameter
attribute2 = more_data.get("attribute2")
return ClassCreated # return the created class
# use class
myclass1 = create_class("hello") # *generates a class*

Is it safe to replace a self object by another object of the same type in a method?

I would like to replace an object instance by another instance inside a method like this:
class A:
def method1(self):
self = func(self)
The object is retrieved from a database.

It is unlikely that replacing the 'self' variable will accomplish whatever you're trying to do, that couldn't just be accomplished by storing the result of func(self) in a different variable. 'self' is effectively a local variable only defined for the duration of the method call, used to pass in the instance of the class which is being operated upon. Replacing self will not actually replace references to the original instance of the class held by other objects, nor will it create a lasting reference to the new instance which was assigned to it.

As far as I understand, If you are trying to replace the current object with another object of same type (assuming func won't change the object type) from an member function. I think this will achieve that:
class A:
def method1(self):
newObj = func(self)
self.__dict__.update(newObj.__dict__)

It is not a direct answer to the question, but in the posts below there's a solution for what amirouche tried to do:
Python object conversion
Can I dynamically convert an instance of one class to another?
And here's working code sample (Python 3.2.5).
class Men:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def who_are_you(self):
print("I'm a men! My name is " + self.name)
def cast_to(self, sex, name):
self.__class__ = sex
self.name = name
def method_unique_to_men(self):
print('I made The Matrix')
class Women:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def who_are_you(self):
print("I'm a women! My name is " + self.name)
def cast_to(self, sex, name):
self.__class__ = sex
self.name = name
def method_unique_to_women(self):
print('I made Cloud Atlas')
men = Men('Larry')
men.who_are_you()
#>>> I'm a men! My name is Larry
men.method_unique_to_men()
#>>> I made The Matrix
men.cast_to(Women, 'Lana')
men.who_are_you()
#>>> I'm a women! My name is Lana
men.method_unique_to_women()
#>>> I made Cloud Atlas
Note the self.__class__ and not self.__class__.__name__. I.e. this technique not only replaces class name, but actually converts an instance of a class (at least both of them have same id()). Also, 1) I don't know whether it is "safe to replace a self object by another object of the same type in [an object own] method"; 2) it works with different types of objects, not only with ones that are of the same type; 3) it works not exactly like amirouche wanted: you can't init class like Class(args), only Class() (I'm not a pro and can't answer why it's like this).

Yes, all that will happen is that you won't be able to reference the current instance of your class A (unless you set another variable to self before you change it.) I wouldn't recommend it though, it makes for less readable code.
Note that you're only changing a variable, just like any other. Doing self = 123 is the same as doing abc = 123. self is only a reference to the current instance within the method. You can't change your instance by setting self.
What func(self) should do is to change the variables of your instance:
def func(obj):
obj.var_a = 123
obj.var_b = 'abc'
Then do this:
class A:
def method1(self):
func(self) # No need to assign self here

In many cases, a good way to achieve what you want is to call __init__ again. For example:
class MyList(list):
def trim(self,n):
self.__init__(self[:-n])
x = MyList([1,2,3,4])
x.trim(2)
assert type(x) == MyList
assert x == [1,2]
Note that this comes with a few assumptions such as the all that you want to change about the object being set in __init__. Also beware that this could cause problems with inheriting classes that redefine __init__ in an incompatible manner.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with this. Haters gonna hate. (Looking at you Pycharm with your in most cases imaginable, there's no point in such reassignment and it indicates an error).
A situation where you could do this is:
some_method(self, ...):
...
if(some_condition):
self = self.some_other_method()
...
return ...
Sure, you could start the method body by reassigning self to some other variable, but if you wouldn't normally do that with other parametres, why do it with self?

One can use the self assignment in a method, to change the class of instance to a derived class.
Of course one could assign it to a new object, but then the use of the new object ripples through the rest of code in the method. Reassiging it to self, leaves the rest of the method untouched.
class aclass:
def methodA(self):
...
if condition:
self = replace_by_derived(self)
# self is now referencing to an instance of a derived class
# with probably the same values for its data attributes
# all code here remains untouched
...
self.methodB() # calls the methodB of derivedclass is condition is True
...
def methodB(self):
# methodB of class aclass
...
class derivedclass(aclass):
def methodB(self):
#methodB of class derivedclass
...
But apart from such a special use case, I don't see any advantages to replace self.

You can make the instance a singleton element of the class
and mark the methods with #classmethod.
from enum import IntEnum
from collections import namedtuple
class kind(IntEnum):
circle = 1
square = 2
def attr(y): return [getattr(y, x) for x in 'k l b u r'.split()]
class Shape(namedtuple('Shape', 'k,l,b,u,r')):
self = None
#classmethod
def __repr__(cls):
return "<Shape({},{},{},{},{}) object at {}>".format(
*(attr(cls.self)+[id(cls.self)]))
#classmethod
def transform(cls, func):
cls.self = cls.self._replace(**func(cls.self))
Shape.self = Shape(k=1, l=2, b=3, u=4, r=5)
s = Shape.self
def nextkind(self):
return {'k': self.k+1}
print(repr(s)) # <Shape(1,2,3,4,5) object at 139766656561792>
s.transform(nextkind)
print(repr(s)) # <Shape(2,2,3,4,5) object at 139766656561888>