Develop Reference

python getter and setter in dict style of static class [duplicate]

I have a class like:
class MyClass:
Foo = 1
Bar = 2
Whenever MyClass.Foo or MyClass.Bar is invoked, I need a custom method to be invoked before the value is returned. Is it possible in Python? I know it is possible if I create an instance of the class and I can define my own __getattr__ method. But my scnenario involves using this class as such without creating any instance of it.
Also I need a custom __str__ method to be invoked when str(MyClass.Foo) is invoked. Does Python provide such an option?

__getattr__() and __str__() for an object are found on its class, so if you want to customize those things for a class, you need the class-of-a-class. A metaclass.
class FooType(type):
def _foo_func(cls):
return 'foo!'
def _bar_func(cls):
return 'bar!'
def __getattr__(cls, key):
if key == 'Foo':
return cls._foo_func()
elif key == 'Bar':
return cls._bar_func()
raise AttributeError(key)
def __str__(cls):
return 'custom str for %s' % (cls.__name__,)
class MyClass(metaclass=FooType):
pass
# # in python 2:
# class MyClass:
# __metaclass__ = FooType
print(MyClass.Foo)
print(MyClass.Bar)
print(str(MyClass))
printing:
foo!
bar!
custom str for MyClass
And no, an object can't intercept a request for a stringifying one of its attributes. The object returned for the attribute must define its own __str__() behavior.
Updated 2023-02-20 for Python 3.x default implementation (python 2 as a comment).

(I know this is an old question, but since all the other answers use a metaclass...)
You can use the following simple classproperty descriptor:
class classproperty(object):
""" #classmethod+#property """
def __init__(self, f):
self.f = classmethod(f)
def __get__(self, *a):
return self.f.__get__(*a)()
Use it like:
class MyClass(object):
#classproperty
def Foo(cls):
do_something()
return 1
#classproperty
def Bar(cls):
do_something_else()
return 2

For the first, you'll need to create a metaclass, and define __getattr__() on that.
class MyMetaclass(type):
def __getattr__(self, name):
return '%s result' % name
class MyClass(object):
__metaclass__ = MyMetaclass
print MyClass.Foo
For the second, no. Calling str(MyClass.Foo) invokes MyClass.Foo.__str__(), so you'll need to return an appropriate type for MyClass.Foo.

Surprised no one pointed this one out:
class FooType(type):
#property
def Foo(cls):
return "foo!"
#property
def Bar(cls):
return "bar!"
class MyClass(metaclass=FooType):
pass
Works:
>>> MyClass.Foo
'foo!'
>>> MyClass.Bar
'bar!'
(for Python 2.x, change definition of MyClass to:
class MyClass(object):
__metaclass__ = FooType
)
What the other answers say about str holds true for this solution: It must be implemented on the type actually returned.

Depending on the case I use this pattern
class _TheRealClass:
def __getattr__(self, attr):
pass
LooksLikeAClass = _TheRealClass()
Then you import and use it.
from foo import LooksLikeAClass
LooksLikeAClass.some_attribute
This avoid use of metaclass, and handle some use cases.

Inheritance method overwrite in some conditions [duplicate]

When creating a simple object hierarchy in Python, I'd like to be able to invoke methods of the parent class from a derived class. In Perl and Java, there is a keyword for this (super). In Perl, I might do this:
package Foo;
sub frotz {
return "Bamf";
}
package Bar;
#ISA = qw(Foo);
sub frotz {
my $str = SUPER::frotz();
return uc($str);
}
In Python, it appears that I have to name the parent class explicitly from the child.
In the example above, I'd have to do something like Foo::frotz().
This doesn't seem right since this behavior makes it hard to make deep hierarchies. If children need to know what class defined an inherited method, then all sorts of information pain is created.
Is this an actual limitation in python, a gap in my understanding or both?

Use the super() function:
class Foo(Bar):
def baz(self, **kwargs):
return super().baz(**kwargs)
For Python < 3, you must explicitly opt in to using new-style classes and use:
class Foo(Bar):
def baz(self, arg):
return super(Foo, self).baz(arg)

Python also has super as well:
super(type[, object-or-type])
Return a proxy object that delegates method calls to a parent or sibling class of type.
This is useful for accessing inherited methods that have been overridden in a class.
The search order is same as that used by getattr() except that the type itself is skipped.
Example:
class A(object): # deriving from 'object' declares A as a 'new-style-class'
def foo(self):
print "foo"
class B(A):
def foo(self):
super(B, self).foo() # calls 'A.foo()'
myB = B()
myB.foo()

ImmediateParentClass.frotz(self)
will be just fine, whether the immediate parent class defined frotz itself or inherited it. super is only needed for proper support of multiple inheritance (and then it only works if every class uses it properly). In general, AnyClass.whatever is going to look up whatever in AnyClass's ancestors if AnyClass doesn't define/override it, and this holds true for "child class calling parent's method" as for any other occurrence!

Python 3 has a different and simpler syntax for calling parent method.
If Foo class inherits from Bar, then from Bar.__init__ can be invoked from Foo via super().__init__():
class Foo(Bar):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
# invoke Bar.__init__
super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)

Many answers have explained how to call a method from the parent which has been overridden in the child.
However
"how do you call a parent class's method from child class?"
could also just mean:
"how do you call inherited methods?"
You can call methods inherited from a parent class just as if they were methods of the child class, as long as they haven't been overwritten.
e.g. in python 3:
class A():
def bar(self, string):
print("Hi, I'm bar, inherited from A"+string)
class B(A):
def baz(self):
self.bar(" - called by baz in B")
B().baz() # prints out "Hi, I'm bar, inherited from A - called by baz in B"
yes, this may be fairly obvious, but I feel that without pointing this out people may leave this thread with the impression you have to jump through ridiculous hoops just to access inherited methods in python. Especially as this question rates highly in searches for "how to access a parent class's method in Python", and the OP is written from the perspective of someone new to python.
I found:
https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html#inheritance
to be useful in understanding how you access inherited methods.

Here is an example of using super():
#New-style classes inherit from object, or from another new-style class
class Dog(object):
name = ''
moves = []
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def moves_setup(self):
self.moves.append('walk')
self.moves.append('run')
def get_moves(self):
return self.moves
class Superdog(Dog):
#Let's try to append new fly ability to our Superdog
def moves_setup(self):
#Set default moves by calling method of parent class
super(Superdog, self).moves_setup()
self.moves.append('fly')
dog = Superdog('Freddy')
print dog.name # Freddy
dog.moves_setup()
print dog.get_moves() # ['walk', 'run', 'fly'].
#As you can see our Superdog has all moves defined in the base Dog class

There's a super() in Python too. It's a bit wonky, because of Python's old- and new-style classes, but is quite commonly used e.g. in constructors:
class Foo(Bar):
def __init__(self):
super(Foo, self).__init__()
self.baz = 5

I would recommend using CLASS.__bases__
something like this
class A:
def __init__(self):
print "I am Class %s"%self.__class__.__name__
for parentClass in self.__class__.__bases__:
print " I am inherited from:",parentClass.__name__
#parentClass.foo(self) <- call parents function with self as first param
class B(A):pass
class C(B):pass
a,b,c = A(),B(),C()

If you don't know how many arguments you might get, and want to pass them all through to the child as well:
class Foo(bar)
def baz(self, arg, *args, **kwargs):
# ... Do your thing
return super(Foo, self).baz(arg, *args, **kwargs)
(From: Python - Cleanest way to override __init__ where an optional kwarg must be used after the super() call?)

There is a super() in python also.
Example for how a super class method is called from a sub class method
class Dog(object):
name = ''
moves = []
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def moves_setup(self,x):
self.moves.append('walk')
self.moves.append('run')
self.moves.append(x)
def get_moves(self):
return self.moves
class Superdog(Dog):
#Let's try to append new fly ability to our Superdog
def moves_setup(self):
#Set default moves by calling method of parent class
super().moves_setup("hello world")
self.moves.append('fly')
dog = Superdog('Freddy')
print (dog.name)
dog.moves_setup()
print (dog.get_moves())
This example is similar to the one explained above.However there is one difference that super doesn't have any arguments passed to it.This above code is executable in python 3.4 version.

In this example cafec_param is a base class (parent class) and abc is a child class. abc calls the AWC method in the base class.
class cafec_param:
def __init__(self,precip,pe,awc,nmonths):
self.precip = precip
self.pe = pe
self.awc = awc
self.nmonths = nmonths
def AWC(self):
if self.awc<254:
Ss = self.awc
Su = 0
self.Ss=Ss
else:
Ss = 254; Su = self.awc-254
self.Ss=Ss + Su
AWC = Ss + Su
return self.Ss
def test(self):
return self.Ss
#return self.Ss*4
class abc(cafec_param):
def rr(self):
return self.AWC()
ee=cafec_param('re',34,56,2)
dd=abc('re',34,56,2)
print(dd.rr())
print(ee.AWC())
print(ee.test())
Output
56
56
56

In Python 2, I didn't have a lot luck with super(). I used the answer from
jimifiki on this SO thread how to refer to a parent method in python?.
Then, I added my own little twist to it, which I think is an improvement in usability (Especially if you have long class names).
Define the base class in one module:
# myA.py
class A():
def foo( self ):
print "foo"
Then import the class into another modules as parent:
# myB.py
from myA import A as parent
class B( parent ):
def foo( self ):
parent.foo( self ) # calls 'A.foo()'

class department:
campus_name="attock"
def printer(self):
print(self.campus_name)
class CS_dept(department):
def overr_CS(self):
department.printer(self)
print("i am child class1")
c=CS_dept()
c.overr_CS()

If you want to call the method of any class, you can simply call Class.method on any instance of the class. If your inheritance is relatively clean, this will work on instances of a child class too:
class Foo:
def __init__(self, var):
self.var = var
def baz(self):
return self.var
class Bar(Foo):
pass
bar = Bar(1)
assert Foo.baz(bar) == 1

class a(object):
def my_hello(self):
print "hello ravi"
class b(a):
def my_hello(self):
super(b,self).my_hello()
print "hi"
obj = b()
obj.my_hello()

This is a more abstract method:
super(self.__class__,self).baz(arg)

Abstract attribute (not property)?

What's the best practice to define an abstract instance attribute, but not as a property?
I would like to write something like:
class AbstractFoo(metaclass=ABCMeta):
#property
#abstractmethod
def bar(self):
pass
class Foo(AbstractFoo):
def __init__(self):
self.bar = 3
Instead of:
class Foo(AbstractFoo):
def __init__(self):
self._bar = 3
#property
def bar(self):
return self._bar
#bar.setter
def setbar(self, bar):
self._bar = bar
#bar.deleter
def delbar(self):
del self._bar
Properties are handy, but for simple attribute requiring no computation they are an overkill. This is especially important for abstract classes which will be subclassed and implemented by the user (I don't want to force someone to use #property when he just could have written self.foo = foo in the __init__).
Abstract attributes in Python question proposes as only answer to use #property and #abstractmethod: it doesn't answer my question.
The ActiveState recipe for an abstract class attribute via AbstractAttribute may be the right way, but I am not sure. It also only works with class attributes and not instance attributes.

A possibly a bit better solution compared to the accepted answer:
from better_abc import ABCMeta, abstract_attribute # see below
class AbstractFoo(metaclass=ABCMeta):
#abstract_attribute
def bar(self):
pass
class Foo(AbstractFoo):
def __init__(self):
self.bar = 3
class BadFoo(AbstractFoo):
def __init__(self):
pass
It will behave like this:
Foo() # ok
BadFoo() # will raise: NotImplementedError: Can't instantiate abstract class BadFoo
# with abstract attributes: bar
This answer uses same approach as the accepted answer, but integrates well with built-in ABC and does not require boilerplate of check_bar() helpers.
Here is the better_abc.py content:
from abc import ABCMeta as NativeABCMeta
class DummyAttribute:
pass
def abstract_attribute(obj=None):
if obj is None:
obj = DummyAttribute()
obj.__is_abstract_attribute__ = True
return obj
class ABCMeta(NativeABCMeta):
def __call__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
instance = NativeABCMeta.__call__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
abstract_attributes = {
name
for name in dir(instance)
if getattr(getattr(instance, name), '__is_abstract_attribute__', False)
}
if abstract_attributes:
raise NotImplementedError(
"Can't instantiate abstract class {} with"
" abstract attributes: {}".format(
cls.__name__,
', '.join(abstract_attributes)
)
)
return instance
The nice thing is that you can do:
class AbstractFoo(metaclass=ABCMeta):
bar = abstract_attribute()
and it will work same as above.
Also one can use:
class ABC(ABCMeta):
pass
to define custom ABC helper. PS. I consider this code to be CC0.
This could be improved by using AST parser to raise earlier (on class declaration) by scanning the __init__ code, but it seems to be an overkill for now (unless someone is willing to implement).
2021: typing support
You can use:
from typing import cast, Any, Callable, TypeVar
R = TypeVar('R')
def abstract_attribute(obj: Callable[[Any], R] = None) -> R:
_obj = cast(Any, obj)
if obj is None:
_obj = DummyAttribute()
_obj.__is_abstract_attribute__ = True
return cast(R, _obj)
which will let mypy highlight some typing issues
class AbstractFooTyped(metaclass=ABCMeta):
#abstract_attribute
def bar(self) -> int:
pass
class FooTyped(AbstractFooTyped):
def __init__(self):
# skipping assignment (which is required!) to demonstrate
# that it works independent of when the assignment is made
pass
f_typed = FooTyped()
_ = f_typed.bar + 'test' # Mypy: Unsupported operand types for + ("int" and "str")
FooTyped.bar = 'test' # Mypy: Incompatible types in assignment (expression has type "str", variable has type "int")
FooTyped.bar + 'test' # Mypy: Unsupported operand types for + ("int" and "str")
and for the shorthand notation, as suggested by #SMiller in the comments:
class AbstractFooTypedShorthand(metaclass=ABCMeta):
bar: int = abstract_attribute()
AbstractFooTypedShorthand.bar += 'test' # Mypy: Unsupported operand types for + ("int" and "str")

Just because you define it as an abstractproperty on the abstract base class doesn't mean you have to make a property on the subclass.
e.g. you can:
In [1]: from abc import ABCMeta, abstractproperty
In [2]: class X(metaclass=ABCMeta):
...: #abstractproperty
...: def required(self):
...: raise NotImplementedError
...:
In [3]: class Y(X):
...: required = True
...:
In [4]: Y()
Out[4]: <__main__.Y at 0x10ae0d390>
If you want to initialise the value in __init__ you can do this:
In [5]: class Z(X):
...: required = None
...: def __init__(self, value):
...: self.required = value
...:
In [6]: Z(value=3)
Out[6]: <__main__.Z at 0x10ae15a20>
Since Python 3.3 abstractproperty is deprecated. So Python 3 users should use the following instead:
from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod
class X(metaclass=ABCMeta):
#property
#abstractmethod
def required(self):
raise NotImplementedError

If you really want to enforce that a subclass define a given attribute, you can use metaclasses:
class AbstractFooMeta(type):
def __call__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
"""Called when you call Foo(*args, **kwargs) """
obj = type.__call__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
obj.check_bar()
return obj
class AbstractFoo(object):
__metaclass__ = AbstractFooMeta
bar = None
def check_bar(self):
if self.bar is None:
raise NotImplementedError('Subclasses must define bar')
class GoodFoo(AbstractFoo):
def __init__(self):
self.bar = 3
class BadFoo(AbstractFoo):
def __init__(self):
pass
Basically the meta class redefine __call__ to make sure check_bar is called after the init on an instance.
GoodFoo()  # ok
BadFoo ()  # yield NotImplementedError

As Anentropic said, you don't have to implement an abstractproperty as another property.
However, one thing all answers seem to neglect is Python's member slots (the __slots__ class attribute). Users of your ABCs required to implement abstract properties could simply define them within __slots__ if all that's needed is a data attribute.
So with something like,
class AbstractFoo(abc.ABC):
__slots__ = ()
bar = abc.abstractproperty()
Users can define sub-classes simply like,
class Foo(AbstractFoo):
__slots__ = 'bar', # the only requirement
# define Foo as desired
def __init__(self):
self.bar = ...
Here, Foo.bar behaves like a regular instance attribute, which it is, just implemented differently. This is simple, efficient, and avoids the #property boilerplate that you described.
This works whether or not ABCs define __slots__ at their class' bodies. However, going with __slots__ all the way not only saves memory and provides faster attribute accesses but also gives a meaningful descriptor instead of having intermediates (e.g. bar = None or similar) in sub-classes.1
A few answers suggest doing the "abstract" attribute check after instantiation (i.e. at the meta-class __call__() method) but I find that not only wasteful but also potentially inefficient as the initialization step could be a time-consuming one.
In short, what's required for sub-classes of ABCs is to override the relevant descriptor (be it a property or a method), it doesn't matter how, and documenting to your users that it's possible to use __slots__ as implementation for abstract properties seems to me as the more adequate approach.
1 In any case, at the very least, ABCs should always define an empty __slots__ class attribute because otherwise sub-classes are forced to have __dict__ (dynamic attribute access) and __weakref__ (weak reference support) when instantiated. See the abc or collections.abc modules for examples of this being the case within the standard library.

The problem isn't what, but when:
from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod
class AbstractFoo(metaclass=ABCMeta):
#abstractmethod
def bar():
pass
class Foo(AbstractFoo):
bar = object()
isinstance(Foo(), AbstractFoo)
#>>> True
It doesn't matter that bar isn't a method! The problem is that __subclasshook__, the method of doing the check, is a classmethod, so only cares whether the class, not the instance, has the attribute.
I suggest you just don't force this, as it's a hard problem. The alternative is forcing them to predefine the attribute, but that just leaves around dummy attributes that just silence errors.

I've searched around for this for awhile but didn't see anything I like. As you probably know if you do:
class AbstractFoo(object):
#property
def bar(self):
raise NotImplementedError(
"Subclasses of AbstractFoo must set an instance attribute "
"self._bar in it's __init__ method")
class Foo(AbstractFoo):
def __init__(self):
self.bar = "bar"
f = Foo()
You get an AttributeError: can't set attribute which is annoying.
To get around this you can do:
class AbstractFoo(object):
#property
def bar(self):
try:
return self._bar
except AttributeError:
raise NotImplementedError(
"Subclasses of AbstractFoo must set an instance attribute "
"self._bar in it's __init__ method")
class OkFoo(AbstractFoo):
def __init__(self):
self._bar = 3
class BadFoo(AbstractFoo):
pass
a = OkFoo()
b = BadFoo()
print a.bar
print b.bar # raises a NotImplementedError
This avoids the AttributeError: can't set attribute but if you just leave off the abstract property all together:
class AbstractFoo(object):
pass
class Foo(AbstractFoo):
pass
f = Foo()
f.bar
You get an AttributeError: 'Foo' object has no attribute 'bar' which is arguably almost as good as the NotImplementedError. So really my solution is just trading one error message from another .. and you have to use self._bar rather than self.bar in the init.

Following https://docs.python.org/2/library/abc.html you could do something like this in Python 2.7:
from abc import ABCMeta, abstractproperty
class Test(object):
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
#abstractproperty
def test(self): yield None
def get_test(self):
return self.test
class TestChild(Test):
test = None
def __init__(self, var):
self.test = var
a = TestChild('test')
print(a.get_test())

Get name of current class?

How do I get the name of the class I am currently in?
Example:
def get_input(class_name):
[do things]
return class_name_result
class foo():
input = get_input([class name goes here])
Due to the nature of the program I am interfacing with (vistrails), I cannot use __init__() to initialize input.

obj.__class__.__name__ will get you any objects name, so you can do this:
class Clazz():
def getName(self):
return self.__class__.__name__
Usage:
>>> c = Clazz()
>>> c.getName()
'Clazz'

Within the body of a class, the class name isn't defined yet, so it is not available. Can you not simply type the name of the class? Maybe you need to say more about the problem so we can find a solution for you.
I would create a metaclass to do this work for you. It's invoked at class creation time (conceptually at the very end of the class: block), and can manipulate the class being created. I haven't tested this:
class InputAssigningMetaclass(type):
def __new__(cls, name, bases, attrs):
cls.input = get_input(name)
return super(MyType, cls).__new__(cls, name, bases, newattrs)
class MyBaseFoo(object):
__metaclass__ = InputAssigningMetaclass
class foo(MyBaseFoo):
# etc, no need to create 'input'
class foo2(MyBaseFoo):
# etc, no need to create 'input'

PEP 3155 introduced __qualname__, which was implemented in Python 3.3.
For top-level functions and classes, the __qualname__ attribute is equal to the __name__ attribute. For nested classes, methods, and nested functions, the __qualname__ attribute contains a dotted path leading to the object from the module top-level.
It is accessible from within the very definition of a class or a function, so for instance:
class Foo:
print(__qualname__)
will effectively print Foo.
You'll get the fully qualified name (excluding the module's name), so you might want to split it on the . character.
However, there is no way to get an actual handle on the class being defined.
>>> class Foo:
... print('Foo' in globals())
...
False

You can access it by the class' private attributes:
cls_name = self.__class__.__name__
EDIT:
As said by Ned Batchelder, this wouldn't work in the class body, but it would in a method.

EDIT: Yes, you can; but you have to cheat: The currently running class name is present on the call stack, and the traceback module allows you to access the stack.
>>> import traceback
>>> def get_input(class_name):
... return class_name.encode('rot13')
...
>>> class foo(object):
... _name = traceback.extract_stack()[-1][2]
... input = get_input(_name)
...
>>>
>>> foo.input
'sbb'
However, I wouldn't do this; My original answer is still my own preference as a solution. Original answer:
probably the very simplest solution is to use a decorator, which is similar to Ned's answer involving metaclasses, but less powerful (decorators are capable of black magic, but metaclasses are capable of ancient, occult black magic)
>>> def get_input(class_name):
... return class_name.encode('rot13')
...
>>> def inputize(cls):
... cls.input = get_input(cls.__name__)
... return cls
...
>>> #inputize
... class foo(object):
... pass
...
>>> foo.input
'sbb'
>>>

#Yuval Adam answer using #property
class Foo():
#property
def name(self):
return self.__class__.__name__
f = Foo()
f.name # will give 'Foo'

I think, it should be like this:
class foo():
input = get_input(__qualname__)

import sys
def class_meta(frame):
class_context = '__module__' in frame.f_locals
assert class_context, 'Frame is not a class context'
module_name = frame.f_locals['__module__']
class_name = frame.f_code.co_name
return module_name, class_name
def print_class_path():
print('%s.%s' % class_meta(sys._getframe(1)))
class MyClass(object):
print_class_path()

I'm using python3.8 and below is example to get your current class name.
class MyObject():
#classmethod
def print_class_name(self):
print(self.__name__)
MyObject.print_class_name()
Or without #classmethod you can use
class ClassA():
def sayhello(self):
print(self.getName())
def getName(self):
return self.__class__.__name__
ClassA().sayhello()
Hope that helps others !!!

Python and the Singleton Pattern [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Creating a singleton in Python
(38 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
There seem to be many ways to define singletons in Python. Is there a consensus opinion on Stack Overflow?

I don't really see the need, as a module with functions (and not a class) would serve well as a singleton. All its variables would be bound to the module, which could not be instantiated repeatedly anyway.
If you do wish to use a class, there is no way of creating private classes or private constructors in Python, so you can't protect against multiple instantiations, other than just via convention in use of your API. I would still just put methods in a module, and consider the module as the singleton.

Here's my own implementation of singletons. All you have to do is decorate the class; to get the singleton, you then have to use the Instance method. Here's an example:
#Singleton
class Foo:
def __init__(self):
print 'Foo created'
f = Foo() # Error, this isn't how you get the instance of a singleton
f = Foo.instance() # Good. Being explicit is in line with the Python Zen
g = Foo.instance() # Returns already created instance
print f is g # True
And here's the code:
class Singleton:
"""
A non-thread-safe helper class to ease implementing singletons.
This should be used as a decorator -- not a metaclass -- to the
class that should be a singleton.
The decorated class can define one `__init__` function that
takes only the `self` argument. Also, the decorated class cannot be
inherited from. Other than that, there are no restrictions that apply
to the decorated class.
To get the singleton instance, use the `instance` method. Trying
to use `__call__` will result in a `TypeError` being raised.
"""
def __init__(self, decorated):
self._decorated = decorated
def instance(self):
"""
Returns the singleton instance. Upon its first call, it creates a
new instance of the decorated class and calls its `__init__` method.
On all subsequent calls, the already created instance is returned.
"""
try:
return self._instance
except AttributeError:
self._instance = self._decorated()
return self._instance
def __call__(self):
raise TypeError('Singletons must be accessed through `instance()`.')
def __instancecheck__(self, inst):
return isinstance(inst, self._decorated)

You can override the __new__ method like this:
class Singleton(object):
_instance = None
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
if not cls._instance:
cls._instance = super(Singleton, cls).__new__(
cls, *args, **kwargs)
return cls._instance
if __name__ == '__main__':
s1 = Singleton()
s2 = Singleton()
if (id(s1) == id(s2)):
print "Same"
else:
print "Different"

A slightly different approach to implement the singleton in Python is the borg pattern by Alex Martelli (Google employee and Python genius).
class Borg:
__shared_state = {}
def __init__(self):
self.__dict__ = self.__shared_state
So instead of forcing all instances to have the same identity, they share state.

The module approach works well. If I absolutely need a singleton I prefer the Metaclass approach.
class Singleton(type):
def __init__(cls, name, bases, dict):
super(Singleton, cls).__init__(name, bases, dict)
cls.instance = None
def __call__(cls,*args,**kw):
if cls.instance is None:
cls.instance = super(Singleton, cls).__call__(*args, **kw)
return cls.instance
class MyClass(object):
__metaclass__ = Singleton

See this implementation from PEP318, implementing the singleton pattern with a decorator:
def singleton(cls):
instances = {}
def getinstance():
if cls not in instances:
instances[cls] = cls()
return instances[cls]
return getinstance
#singleton
class MyClass:
...

The Python documentation does cover this:
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
I would probably rewrite it to look more like this:
class Singleton(object):
"""Use to create a singleton"""
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwds):
"""
>>> s = Singleton()
>>> p = Singleton()
>>> id(s) == id(p)
True
"""
it_id = "__it__"
# getattr will dip into base classes, so __dict__ must be used
it = cls.__dict__.get(it_id, None)
if it is not None:
return it
it = object.__new__(cls)
setattr(cls, it_id, it)
it.init(*args, **kwds)
return it
def init(self, *args, **kwds):
pass
class A(Singleton):
pass
class B(Singleton):
pass
class C(A):
pass
assert A() is A()
assert B() is B()
assert C() is C()
assert A() is not B()
assert C() is not B()
assert C() is not A()
It should be relatively clean to extend this:
class Bus(Singleton):
def init(self, label=None, *args, **kwds):
self.label = label
self.channels = [Channel("system"), Channel("app")]
...

As the accepted answer says, the most idiomatic way is to just use a module.
With that in mind, here's a proof of concept:
def singleton(cls):
obj = cls()
# Always return the same object
cls.__new__ = staticmethod(lambda cls: obj)
# Disable __init__
try:
del cls.__init__
except AttributeError:
pass
return cls
See the Python data model for more details on __new__.
Example:
#singleton
class Duck(object):
pass
if Duck() is Duck():
print "It works!"
else:
print "It doesn't work!"
Notes:
You have to use new-style classes (derive from object) for this.
The singleton is initialized when it is defined, rather than the first time it's used.
This is just a toy example. I've never actually used this in production code, and don't plan to.

I'm very unsure about this, but my project uses 'convention singletons' (not enforced singletons), that is, if I have a class called DataController, I define this in the same module:
_data_controller = None
def GetDataController():
global _data_controller
if _data_controller is None:
_data_controller = DataController()
return _data_controller
It is not elegant, since it's a full six lines. But all my singletons use this pattern, and it's at least very explicit (which is pythonic).

The one time I wrote a singleton in Python I used a class where all the member functions had the classmethod decorator.
class Foo:
x = 1
#classmethod
def increment(cls, y=1):
cls.x += y

Creating a singleton decorator (aka an annotation) is an elegant way if you want to decorate (annotate) classes going forward. Then you just put #singleton before your class definition.
def singleton(cls):
instances = {}
def getinstance():
if cls not in instances:
instances[cls] = cls()
return instances[cls]
return getinstance
#singleton
class MyClass:
...

There are also some interesting articles on the Google Testing blog, discussing why singleton are/may be bad and are an anti-pattern:
Singletons are Pathological Liars
Where Have All the Singletons Gone?
Root Cause of Singletons

I think that forcing a class or an instance to be a singleton is overkill. Personally, I like to define a normal instantiable class, a semi-private reference, and a simple factory function.
class NothingSpecial:
pass
_the_one_and_only = None
def TheOneAndOnly():
global _the_one_and_only
if not _the_one_and_only:
_the_one_and_only = NothingSpecial()
return _the_one_and_only
Or if there is no issue with instantiating when the module is first imported:
class NothingSpecial:
pass
THE_ONE_AND_ONLY = NothingSpecial()
That way you can write tests against fresh instances without side effects, and there is no need for sprinkling the module with global statements, and if needed you can derive variants in the future.

The Singleton Pattern implemented with Python courtesy of ActiveState.
It looks like the trick is to put the class that's supposed to only have one instance inside of another class.

class Singleton(object[,...]):
staticVar1 = None
staticVar2 = None
def __init__(self):
if self.__class__.staticVar1==None :
# create class instance variable for instantiation of class
# assign class instance variable values to class static variables
else:
# assign class static variable values to class instance variables

class Singeltone(type):
instances = dict()
def __call__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
if cls.__name__ not in Singeltone.instances:
Singeltone.instances[cls.__name__] = type.__call__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
return Singeltone.instances[cls.__name__]
class Test(object):
__metaclass__ = Singeltone
inst0 = Test()
inst1 = Test()
print(id(inst1) == id(inst0))

OK, singleton could be good or evil, I know. This is my implementation, and I simply extend a classic approach to introduce a cache inside and produce many instances of a different type or, many instances of same type, but with different arguments.
I called it Singleton_group, because it groups similar instances together and prevent that an object of the same class, with same arguments, could be created:
# Peppelinux's cached singleton
class Singleton_group(object):
__instances_args_dict = {}
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
if not cls.__instances_args_dict.get((cls.__name__, args, str(kwargs))):
cls.__instances_args_dict[(cls.__name__, args, str(kwargs))] = super(Singleton_group, cls).__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
return cls.__instances_args_dict.get((cls.__name__, args, str(kwargs)))
# It's a dummy real world use example:
class test(Singleton_group):
def __init__(self, salute):
self.salute = salute
a = test('bye')
b = test('hi')
c = test('bye')
d = test('hi')
e = test('goodbye')
f = test('goodbye')
id(a)
3070148780L
id(b)
3070148908L
id(c)
3070148780L
b == d
True
b._Singleton_group__instances_args_dict
{('test', ('bye',), '{}'): <__main__.test object at 0xb6fec0ac>,
('test', ('goodbye',), '{}'): <__main__.test object at 0xb6fec32c>,
('test', ('hi',), '{}'): <__main__.test object at 0xb6fec12c>}
Every object carries the singleton cache... This could be evil, but it works great for some :)

My simple solution which is based on the default value of function parameters.
def getSystemContext(contextObjList=[]):
if len( contextObjList ) == 0:
contextObjList.append( Context() )
pass
return contextObjList[0]
class Context(object):
# Anything you want here

Being relatively new to Python I'm not sure what the most common idiom is, but the simplest thing I can think of is just using a module instead of a class. What would have been instance methods on your class become just functions in the module and any data just becomes variables in the module instead of members of the class. I suspect this is the pythonic approach to solving the type of problem that people use singletons for.
If you really want a singleton class, there's a reasonable implementation described on the first hit on Google for "Python singleton", specifically:
class Singleton:
__single = None
def __init__( self ):
if Singleton.__single:
raise Singleton.__single
Singleton.__single = self
That seems to do the trick.

Singleton's half brother
I completely agree with staale and I leave here a sample of creating a singleton half brother:
class void:pass
a = void();
a.__class__ = Singleton
a will report now as being of the same class as singleton even if it does not look like it. So singletons using complicated classes end up depending on we don't mess much with them.
Being so, we can have the same effect and use simpler things like a variable or a module. Still, if we want use classes for clarity and because in Python a class is an object, so we already have the object (not and instance, but it will do just like).
class Singleton:
def __new__(cls): raise AssertionError # Singletons can't have instances
There we have a nice assertion error if we try to create an instance, and we can store on derivations static members and make changes to them at runtime (I love Python). This object is as good as other about half brothers (you still can create them if you wish), however it will tend to run faster due to simplicity.

In cases where you don't want the metaclass-based solution above, and you don't like the simple function decorator-based approach (e.g. because in that case static methods on the singleton class won't work), this compromise works:
class singleton(object):
"""Singleton decorator."""
def __init__(self, cls):
self.__dict__['cls'] = cls
instances = {}
def __call__(self):
if self.cls not in self.instances:
self.instances[self.cls] = self.cls()
return self.instances[self.cls]
def __getattr__(self, attr):
return getattr(self.__dict__['cls'], attr)
def __setattr__(self, attr, value):
return setattr(self.__dict__['cls'], attr, value)