I've read What are Class methods in Python for? but the examples in that post are complex. I am looking for a clear, simple, bare-bones example of a particular use case for classmethods in Python.
Can you name a small, specific example use case where a Python classmethod would be the right tool for the job?
Helper methods for initialization:
class MyStream(object):
#classmethod
def from_file(cls, filepath, ignore_comments=False):
with open(filepath, 'r') as fileobj:
for obj in cls(fileobj, ignore_comments):
yield obj
#classmethod
def from_socket(cls, socket, ignore_comments=False):
raise NotImplemented # Placeholder until implemented
def __init__(self, iterable, ignore_comments=False):
...
Well __new__ is a pretty important classmethod. It's where instances usually come from
so dict() calls dict.__new__ of course, but there is another handy way to make dicts sometimes which is the classmethod dict.fromkeys()
eg.
>>> dict.fromkeys("12345")
{'1': None, '3': None, '2': None, '5': None, '4': None}
I don't know, something like named constructor methods?
class UniqueIdentifier(object):
value = 0
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
#classmethod
def produce(cls):
instance = cls(cls.value)
cls.value += 1
return instance
class FunkyUniqueIdentifier(UniqueIdentifier):
#classmethod
def produce(cls):
instance = super(FunkyUniqueIdentifier, cls).produce()
instance.name = "Funky %s" % instance.name
return instance
Usage:
>>> x = UniqueIdentifier.produce()
>>> y = FunkyUniqueIdentifier.produce()
>>> x.name
0
>>> y.name
Funky 1
The biggest reason for using a #classmethod is in an alternate constructor that is intended to be inherited. This can be very useful in polymorphism. An example:
class Shape(object):
# this is an abstract class that is primarily used for inheritance defaults
# here is where you would define classmethods that can be overridden by inherited classes
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
# return a default instance of cls
return cls()
Notice that Shape is an abstract class that defines a classmethod from_square, since Shape is not really defined, it does not really know how to derive itself from a Square so it simply returns a default instance of the class.
Inherited classes are then allowed to define their own versions of this method:
class Square(Shape):
def __init__(self, side=10):
self.side = side
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
return cls(side=square.side)
class Rectangle(Shape):
def __init__(self, length=10, width=10):
self.length = length
self.width = width
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
return cls(length=square.side, width=square.side)
class RightTriangle(Shape):
def __init__(self, a=10, b=10):
self.a = a
self.b = b
self.c = ((a*a) + (b*b))**(.5)
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
return cls(a=square.length, b=square.width)
class Circle(Shape):
def __init__(self, radius=10):
self.radius = radius
#classmethod
def from_square(cls, square):
return cls(radius=square.length/2)
The usage allows you to treat all of these uninstantiated classes polymorphically
square = Square(3)
for polymorphic_class in (Square, Rectangle, RightTriangle, Circle):
this_shape = polymorphic_class.from_square(square)
This is all fine and dandy you might say, but why couldn't I just use as #staticmethod to accomplish this same polymorphic behavior:
class Circle(Shape):
def __init__(self, radius=10):
self.radius = radius
#staticmethod
def from_square(square):
return Circle(radius=square.length/2)
The answer is that you could, but you do not get the benefits of inheritance because Circle has to be called out explicitly in the method. Meaning if I call it from an inherited class without overriding, I would still get Circle every time.
Notice what is gained when I define another shape class that does not really have any custom from_square logic:
class Hexagon(Shape):
def __init__(self, side=10):
self.side = side
# note the absence of classmethod here, this will use from_square it inherits from shape
Here you can leave the #classmethod undefined and it will use the logic from Shape.from_square while retaining who cls is and return the appropriate shape.
square = Square(3)
for polymorphic_class in (Square, Rectangle, RightTriangle, Circle, Hexagon):
this_shape = polymorphic_class.from_square(square)
I find that I most often use #classmethod to associate a piece of code with a class, to avoid creating a global function, for cases where I don't require an instance of the class to use the code.
For example, I might have a data structure which only considers a key valid if it conforms to some pattern. I may want to use this from inside and outside of the class. However, I don't want to create yet another global function:
def foo_key_is_valid(key):
# code for determining validity here
return valid
I'd much rather group this code with the class it's associated with:
class Foo(object):
#classmethod
def is_valid(cls, key):
# code for determining validity here
return valid
def add_key(self, key, val):
if not Foo.is_valid(key):
raise ValueError()
..
# lets me reuse that method without an instance, and signals that
# the code is closely-associated with the Foo class
Foo.is_valid('my key')
Another useful example of classmethod is in extending enumerated types. A classic Enum provides symbolic names which can be used later in the code for readability, grouping, type-safety, etc. This can be extended to add useful features using a classmethod. In the example below, Weekday is an enuerated type for the days of the week. It has been extended using classmethod so that instead of keeping track of the weekday ourselves, the enumerated type can extract the date and return the related enum member.
from enum import Enum
from datetime import date
class Weekday(Enum):
MONDAY = 1
TUESDAY = 2
WEDNESDAY = 3
THURSDAY = 4
FRIDAY = 5
SATURDAY = 6
SUNDAY = 7
#
#classmethod
def from_date(cls, date):
return cls(date.isoweekday())
Weekday.from_date(date.today())
<Weekday.TUESDAY: 2>
Source: https://docs.python.org/3/howto/enum.html
in class MyClass(object):
'''
classdocs
'''
obj=0
x=classmethod
def __init__(self):
'''
Constructor
'''
self.nom='lamaizi'
self.prenom='anas'
self.age=21
self.ville='Casablanca'
if __name__:
ob=MyClass()
print(ob.nom)
print(ob.prenom)
print(ob.age)
print(ob.ville)
Related
Specifically, I would want MyClass.my_method to be used for lookup of a value in the class dictionary, but MyClass.my_method() to be a method that accepts arguments and performs a computation to update an attribute in MyClass and then returns MyClass with all its attributes (including the updated one).
I am thinking that this might be doable with Python's descriptors (maybe overriding __get__ or __call__), but I can't figure out how this would look. I understand that the behavior might be confusing, but I am interested if it is possible (and if there are any other major caveats).
I have seen that you can do something similar for classes and functions by overriding __repr__, but I can't find a similar way for a method within a class. My returned value will also not always be a string, which seems to prohibit the __repr__-based approaches mentioned in these two questions:
Possible to change a function's repr in python?
How to create a custom string representation for a class object?
Thank you Joel for the minimal implementation. I found that the remaining problem is the lack of initialization of the parent, since I did not find a generic way of initializing it, I need to check for attributes in the case of list/dict, and add the initialization values to the parent accordingly.
This addition to the code should make it work for lists/dicts:
def classFactory(parent, init_val, target):
class modifierClass(parent):
def __init__(self, init_val):
super().__init__()
dict_attr = getattr(parent, "update", None)
list_attr = getattr(parent, "extend", None)
if callable(dict_attr): # parent is dict
self.update(init_val)
elif callable(list_attr): # parent is list
self.extend(init_val)
self.target = target
def __call__(self, *args):
self.target.__init__(*args)
return modifierClass(init_val)
class myClass:
def __init__(self, init_val=''):
self.method = classFactory(init_val.__class__, init_val, self)
Unfortunately, we need to add case by case, but this works as intended.
A slightly less verbose way to write the above is the following:
def classFactory(parent, init_val, target):
class modifierClass(parent):
def __init__(self, init_val):
if isinstance(init_val, list):
self.extend(init_val)
elif isinstance(init_val, dict):
self.update(init_val)
self.target = target
def __call__(self, *args):
self.target.__init__(*args)
return modifierClass(init_val)
class myClass:
def __init__(self, init_val=''):
self.method = classFactory(init_val.__class__, init_val, self)
As jasonharper commented,
MyClass.my_method() works by looking up MyClass.my_method, and then attempting to call that object. So the result of MyClass.my_method cannot be a plain string, int, or other common data type [...]
The trouble comes specifically from reusing the same name for this two properties, which is very confusing just as you said. So, don't do it.
But for the sole interest of it you could try to proxy the value of the property with an object that would return the original MyClass instance when called, use an actual setter to perform any computation you wanted, and also forward arbitrary attributes to the proxied value.
class MyClass:
_my_method = whatever
#property
def my_method(self):
my_class = self
class Proxy:
def __init__(self, value):
self.__proxied = value
def __call__(self, value):
my_class.my_method = value
return my_class
def __getattr__(self, name):
return getattr(self.__proxied, name)
def __str__(self):
return str(self.__proxied)
def __repr__(self):
return repr(self.__proxied)
return Proxy(self._my_method)
#my_method.setter
def my_method(self, value):
# your computations
self._my_method = value
a = MyClass()
b = a.my_method('do not do this at home')
a is b
# True
a.my_method.split(' ')
# ['do', 'not', 'do', 'this', 'at', 'home']
And today, duck typing will abuse you, forcing you to delegate all kinds of magic methods to the proxied value in the proxy class, until the poor codebase where you want to inject this is satisfied with how those values quack.
This is a minimal implementation of Guillherme's answer that updates the method instead of a separate modifiable parameter:
def classFactory(parent, init_val, target):
class modifierClass(parent):
def __init__(self, init_val):
self.target = target
def __call__(self, *args):
self.target.__init__(*args)
return modifierClass(init_val)
class myClass:
def __init__(self, init_val=''):
self.method = classFactory(init_val.__class__, init_val, self)
This and the original answer both work well for single values, but it seems like lists and dictionaries are returned as empty instead of with the expected values and I am not sure why so help is appreciated here:
Take a look at this code snippet:
class Face():
pass
class Cube():
def __init__(self):
self.faces = {
'front': Face(1),
...
}
#property
def front(self):
return self.faces['front']
#front.setter
def front(self, f):
pass
I've created getters and setters for all the faces. Is there any way to make this code more compact, maybe by dynamically creating the getters and setters?
The following code assumes that you
have a reason to have the self.faces dict instead of setting attributes like front directly on the instance
and/or want to implement some meaningful getter and setter logic for the keys in self.faces.
Otherwise, this exercise is pretty pointless because as Corentin Limier noted you can simply set self.front = Face(1), and so on.
You can use descriptors, a class variable holding the face names and a class decorator. Think of descriptors as reusable properties.
In the following sample code I added a num instance variable to Face and the face 'side' just for demonstration purposes.
class FaceDescriptor:
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
# your custom getter logic
# dummy implementation
if instance is not None:
return instance.faces[self.face]
def __set__(self, instance, value):
# your custom setter logic
# dummy implementation
instance.faces[self.face] = value
def set_faces(cls):
for face in cls._faces:
desc = FaceDescriptor()
desc.face = face
setattr(cls, face, desc)
return cls
class Face():
def __init__(self, num):
self.num = num
#set_faces
class Cube():
_faces = ['front', 'side']
def __init__(self):
self.faces = {face:Face(i) for i, face in enumerate(self._faces, 1)}
In action:
>>> c = Cube()
>>> c.front.num
1
>>> c.side.num
2
>>> c.front = 'stuff'
>>> c.front
'stuff'
>>> c.faces
{'front': 'stuff', 'side': <__main__.Face at 0x7fd0978f37f0>}
Assuming that's all your class does, you could do something like
class Cube:
...
def __getattr__(self, name):
return self.faces[name]
def __setattr__(self, name, value):
self.faces[name] = value
if you really want to do that you could use __getattr__ and __setattr__:
class Cube:
...
def __getattr__(self, item):
return self.faces[item]
def __setattr__(self, item, value):
self.faces[item] = value
but as you set front in the __init__ methoud you could just as well make it a regular member...
Your code is redundant, since instance attributes are already stored in a dictionary which is the __dict__ property. I recognize that you are focused on writing your code in fewer lines. It is a good challenge to keep yourself growing, but in the long term you should be focused on the clarity of your code instead.
Here is a simpler way to write your code without using properties:
class Face():
pass
class Cube():
def __init__(self):
self.front = Face()
self.rear = Face()
It is a tenet of encapsulation that you should hide your "attributes" behind "properties". Even though this isn't strongly enforced in python, it's not a bad idea to do that. Here's the proper way to do that:
class Face():
pass
class Cube():
def __init__(self):
self._front = Face()
#property
def front(self):
return self._front
#front.setter
def front(self, value):
self._front = value
To answer your question at the end, yes you can dynamically create properties.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/1355444/3368572
But keep in mind that writing dynamic code should be reserved for special cases since it will make it more difficult for your IDE to follow the flow of your program. If you use the conventions as they are intended then your code becomes self-explanatory to people and to your IDE.
I have a parent class and two child class. The parent class is an abstract base class that has method combine that gets inherited by the child classes. But each child implements combine differently from a parameter perspective therefore each of their own methods take different number of parameters. In Python, when a child inherits a method and requires re-implementing it, that newly re-implemented method must match parameter by parameter. Is there a way around this? I.e. the inherited method can have dynamic parameter composition?
This code demonstrates that signature of overridden method can easily change.
class Parent(object):
def foo(self, number):
for _ in range(number):
print "Hello from parent"
class Child(Parent):
def foo(self, number, greeting):
for _ in range(number):
print greeting
class GrandChild(Child):
def foo(self):
super(GrandChild,self).foo(1, "hey")
p = Parent()
p.foo(3)
c = Child()
c.foo(2, "Hi")
g = GrandChild()
g.foo()
As the other answer demonstrates for plain classes, the signature of an overridden inherited method can be different in the child than in the parent.
The same is true even if the parent is an abstract base class:
import abc
class Foo:
__metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta
#abc.abstractmethod
def bar(self, x, y):
return x + y
class ChildFoo(Foo):
def bar(self, x):
return super(self.__class__, self).bar(x, 3)
class DumbFoo(Foo):
def bar(self):
return "derp derp derp"
cf = ChildFoo()
print cf.bar(5)
df = DumbFoo()
print df.bar()
Inappropriately complicated detour
It is an interesting exercise in Python metaclasses to try to restrict the ability to override methods, such that their argument signature must match that of the base class. Here is an attempt.
Note: I'm not endorsing this as a good engineering idea, and I did not spend time tying up loose ends so there are likely little caveats about the code below that could make it more efficient or something.
import types
import inspect
def strict(func):
"""Add some info for functions having strict signature.
"""
arg_sig = inspect.getargspec(func)
func.is_strict = True
func.arg_signature = arg_sig
return func
class StrictSignature(type):
def __new__(cls, name, bases, attrs):
func_types = (types.MethodType,) # include types.FunctionType?
# Check each attribute in the class being created.
for attr_name, attr_value in attrs.iteritems():
if isinstance(attr_value, func_types):
# Check every base for #strict functions.
for base in bases:
base_attr = base.__dict__.get(attr_name)
base_attr_is_function = isinstance(base_attr, func_types)
base_attr_is_strict = hasattr(base_attr, "is_strict")
# Assert that inspected signatures match.
if base_attr_is_function and base_attr_is_strict:
assert (inspect.getargspec(attr_value) ==
base_attr.arg_signature)
# If everything passed, create the class.
return super(StrictSignature, cls).__new__(cls, name, bases, attrs)
# Make a base class to try out strictness
class Base:
__metaclass__ = StrictSignature
#strict
def foo(self, a, b, c="blah"):
return a + b + len(c)
def bar(self, x, y, z):
return x
#####
# Now try to make some classes inheriting from Base.
#####
class GoodChild(Base):
# Was declared strict, better match the signature.
def foo(self, a, b, c="blah"):
return c
# Was never declared as strict, so no rules!
def bar(im_a_little, teapot):
return teapot/2
# These below can't even be created. Uncomment and try to run the file
# and see. It's not just that you can't instantiate them, you can't
# even get the *class object* defined at class creation time.
#
#class WrongChild(Base):
# def foo(self, a):
# return super(self.__class__, self).foo(a, 5)
#
#class BadChild(Base):
# def foo(self, a, b, c="halb"):
# return super(self.__class__, self).foo(a, b, c)
Note, like with most "strict" or "private" type ideas in Python, that you are still free to monkey-patch functions onto even a "good class" and those monkey-patched functions don't have to satisfy the signature constraint.
# Instance level
gc = GoodChild()
gc.foo = lambda self=gc: "Haha, I changed the signature!"
# Class level
GoodChild.foo = lambda self: "Haha, I changed the signature!"
and even if you add more complexity to the meta class that checks whenever any method type attributes are updated in the class's __dict__ and keeps making the assert statement when the class is modified, you can still use type.__setattr__ to bypass customized behavior and set an attribute anyway.
In these cases, I imagine Jeff Goldblum as Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, looking at you blankly and saying "Consenting adults, uhh, find a way.."
I'm simulating a distributed system in which all nodes follow some protocol. This includes assessing some small variations in the protocol. A variation means alternative implementation of a single method. All nodes always follow the same variation, which is determined by experiment configuration (only one configuration is active at any given time). What is the clearest way to do it, without sacrificing performance?
As an experiment can be quite extensive, I clearly don't want any conditionals. Before I've just used inheritance, like:
class Node(object):
def dumb_method(self, argument):
# ...
def slow_method(self, argument):
# ...
# A lot more methods
class SmarterNode(Node):
def dumb_method(self, argument):
# A somewhat smarter variant ...
class FasterNode(SmarterNode):
def slow_method(self, argument):
# A faster variant ...
But now I need to test all possible variants and don't want an exponential number of classes cluttering the source. I also want other people peeping at the code to understand it with minimal effort. What are your suggestions?
Edit: One thing I failed to emphasize enough: for all envisioned use cases, it seems that patching the class upon configuration is good. I mean: it can be made to work by simple Node.dumb_method = smart_method. But somehow it didn't feel right. Would this kind of solution cause major headache to a random smart reader?
You can create new subtypes with the type function. You just have to give it the subclasses namespace as a dict.
# these are supposed to overwrite methods
def foo(self):
return "foo"
def bar(self):
return "bar"
def variants(base, methods):
"""
given a base class and list of dicts like [{ foo = <function foo> }]
returns types T(base) where foo was overwritten
"""
for d in methods:
yield type('NodeVariant', (base,), d)
from itertools import combinations
def subdicts(**fulldict):
""" returns all dicts that are subsets of `fulldict` """
items = fulldict.items()
for i in range(len(items)+1):
for subset in combinations(items, i):
yield dict(subset)
# a list of method variants
combos = subdicts(slow_method=foo, dumb_method=bar)
# base class
class Node(object):
def dumb_method(self):
return "dumb"
def slow_method(self):
return "slow"
# use the base and our variants to make a number of types
types = variants(Node, combos)
# instantiate each type and call boths methods on it for demonstration
print [(var.dumb_method(), var.slow_method()) for var
in (cls() for cls in types)]
# [('dumb', 'slow'), ('dumb', 'foo'), ('bar', 'slow'), ('bar', 'foo')]
You could use the __slots__ mechanism and a factory class. You would need to instantiate a NodeFactory for each experiment, but it would handle creating Node instances for you from there on. Example:
class Node(object):
__slots__ = ["slow","dumb"]
class NodeFactory(object):
def __init__(self, slow_method, dumb_method):
self.slow = slow_method
self.dumb = dumb_method
def makenode(self):
n = Node()
n.dumb = self.dumb
n.slow = self.slow
return n
an example run:
>>> def foo():
... print "foo"
...
>>> def bar():
... print "bar"
...
>>> nf = NodeFactory(foo, bar)
>>> n = nf.makenode()
>>> n.dumb()
bar
>>> n.slow()
foo
I'm not sure if you're trying to do something akin to this (allows swap-out runtime "inheritance"):
class Node(object):
__methnames = ('method','method1')
def __init__(self, type):
for i in self.__methnames:
setattr(self, i, getattr(self, i+"_"+type))
def dumb_method(self, argument):
# ...
def slow_method(self, argument):
# ...
n = Node('dumb')
n.method() # calls dumb_method
n = Node('slow')
n.method() # calls slow_method
Or if you're looking for something like this (allows running (and therefore testing) of all methods of the class):
class Node(object):
#do something
class NodeTest(Node):
def run_tests(self, ending = ''):
for i in dir(self):
if(i.endswith(ending)):
meth = getattr(self, i)
if(callable(meth)):
meth() #needs some default args.
# or yield meth if you can
You can use a metaclass for this.
If will let you create a class on the fly with method names according to every variations.
Should the method to be called be decided when the class is instantiated or after? Assuming it is when the class is instantiated, how about the following:
class Node():
def Fast(self):
print "Fast"
def Slow(self):
print "Slow"
class NodeFactory():
def __init__(self, method):
self.method = method
def SetMethod(self, method):
self.method = method
def New(self):
n = Node()
n.Run = getattr(n, self.method)
return n
nf = NodeFactory("Fast")
nf.New().Run()
# Prints "Fast"
nf.SetMethod("Slow")
nf.New().Run()
# Prints "Slow"
I can't find a definitive answer for this. As far as I know, you can't have multiple __init__ functions in a Python class. So how do I solve this problem?
Suppose I have a class called Cheese with the number_of_holes property. How can I have two ways of creating cheese objects...
One that takes a number of holes like this: parmesan = Cheese(num_holes = 15).
And one that takes no arguments and just randomizes the number_of_holes property: gouda = Cheese().
I can think of only one way to do this, but this seems clunky:
class Cheese():
def __init__(self, num_holes = 0):
if (num_holes == 0):
# Randomize number_of_holes
else:
number_of_holes = num_holes
What do you say? Is there another way?
Actually None is much better for "magic" values:
class Cheese():
def __init__(self, num_holes = None):
if num_holes is None:
...
Now if you want complete freedom of adding more parameters:
class Cheese():
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
#args -- tuple of anonymous arguments
#kwargs -- dictionary of named arguments
self.num_holes = kwargs.get('num_holes',random_holes())
To better explain the concept of *args and **kwargs (you can actually change these names):
def f(*args, **kwargs):
print 'args: ', args, ' kwargs: ', kwargs
>>> f('a')
args: ('a',) kwargs: {}
>>> f(ar='a')
args: () kwargs: {'ar': 'a'}
>>> f(1,2,param=3)
args: (1, 2) kwargs: {'param': 3}
http://docs.python.org/reference/expressions.html#calls
Using num_holes=None as the default is fine if you are going to have just __init__.
If you want multiple, independent "constructors", you can provide these as class methods. These are usually called factory methods. In this case you could have the default for num_holes be 0.
class Cheese(object):
def __init__(self, num_holes=0):
"defaults to a solid cheese"
self.number_of_holes = num_holes
#classmethod
def random(cls):
return cls(randint(0, 100))
#classmethod
def slightly_holey(cls):
return cls(randint(0, 33))
#classmethod
def very_holey(cls):
return cls(randint(66, 100))
Now create object like this:
gouda = Cheese()
emmentaler = Cheese.random()
leerdammer = Cheese.slightly_holey()
One should definitely prefer the solutions already posted, but since no one mentioned this solution yet, I think it is worth mentioning for completeness.
The #classmethod approach can be modified to provide an alternative constructor which does not invoke the default constructor (__init__). Instead, an instance is created using __new__.
This could be used if the type of initialization cannot be selected based on the type of the constructor argument, and the constructors do not share code.
Example:
class MyClass(set):
def __init__(self, filename):
self._value = load_from_file(filename)
#classmethod
def from_somewhere(cls, somename):
obj = cls.__new__(cls) # Does not call __init__
super(MyClass, obj).__init__() # Don't forget to call any polymorphic base class initializers
obj._value = load_from_somewhere(somename)
return obj
All of these answers are excellent if you want to use optional parameters, but another Pythonic possibility is to use a classmethod to generate a factory-style pseudo-constructor:
def __init__(self, num_holes):
# do stuff with the number
#classmethod
def fromRandom(cls):
return cls( # some-random-number )
Why do you think your solution is "clunky"? Personally I would prefer one constructor with default values over multiple overloaded constructors in situations like yours (Python does not support method overloading anyway):
def __init__(self, num_holes=None):
if num_holes is None:
# Construct a gouda
else:
# custom cheese
# common initialization
For really complex cases with lots of different constructors, it might be cleaner to use different factory functions instead:
#classmethod
def create_gouda(cls):
c = Cheese()
# ...
return c
#classmethod
def create_cheddar(cls):
# ...
In your cheese example you might want to use a Gouda subclass of Cheese though...
Those are good ideas for your implementation, but if you are presenting a cheese making interface to a user. They don't care how many holes the cheese has or what internals go into making cheese. The user of your code just wants "gouda" or "parmesean" right?
So why not do this:
# cheese_user.py
from cheeses import make_gouda, make_parmesean
gouda = make_gouda()
paremesean = make_parmesean()
And then you can use any of the methods above to actually implement the functions:
# cheeses.py
class Cheese(object):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
#args -- tuple of anonymous arguments
#kwargs -- dictionary of named arguments
self.num_holes = kwargs.get('num_holes',random_holes())
def make_gouda():
return Cheese()
def make_paremesean():
return Cheese(num_holes=15)
This is a good encapsulation technique, and I think it is more Pythonic. To me this way of doing things fits more in line more with duck typing. You are simply asking for a gouda object and you don't really care what class it is.
Overview
For the specific cheese example, I agree with many of the other answers about using default values to signal random initialization or to use a static factory method. However, there may also be related scenarios that you had in mind where there is value in having alternative, concise ways of calling the constructor without hurting the quality of parameter names or type information.
Since Python 3.8 and functools.singledispatchmethod can help accomplish this in many cases (and the more flexible multimethod can apply in even more scenarios). (This related post describes how one could accomplish the same in Python 3.4 without a library.) I haven't seen examples in the documentation for either of these that specifically shows overloading __init__ as you ask about, but it appears that the same principles for overloading any member method apply (as shown below).
"Single dispatch" (available in the standard library) requires that there be at least one positional parameter and that the type of the first argument be sufficient to distinguish among the possible overloaded options. For the specific Cheese example, this doesn't hold since you wanted random holes when no parameters were given, but multidispatch does support the very same syntax and can be used as long as each method version can be distinguish based on the number and type of all arguments together.
Example
Here is an example of how to use either method (some of the details are in order to please mypy which was my goal when I first put this together):
from functools import singledispatchmethod as overload
# or the following more flexible method after `pip install multimethod`
# from multimethod import multidispatch as overload
class MyClass:
#overload # type: ignore[misc]
def __init__(self, a: int = 0, b: str = 'default'):
self.a = a
self.b = b
#__init__.register
def _from_str(self, b: str, a: int = 0):
self.__init__(a, b) # type: ignore[misc]
def __repr__(self) -> str:
return f"({self.a}, {self.b})"
print([
MyClass(1, "test"),
MyClass("test", 1),
MyClass("test"),
MyClass(1, b="test"),
MyClass("test", a=1),
MyClass("test"),
MyClass(1),
# MyClass(), # `multidispatch` version handles these 3, too.
# MyClass(a=1, b="test"),
# MyClass(b="test", a=1),
])
Output:
[(1, test), (1, test), (0, test), (1, test), (1, test), (0, test), (1, default)]
Notes:
I wouldn't usually make the alias called overload, but it helped make the diff between using the two methods just a matter of which import you use.
The # type: ignore[misc] comments are not necessary to run, but I put them in there to please mypy which doesn't like decorating __init__ nor calling __init__ directly.
If you are new to the decorator syntax, realize that putting #overload before the definition of __init__ is just sugar for __init__ = overload(the original definition of __init__). In this case, overload is a class so the resulting __init__ is an object that has a __call__ method so that it looks like a function but that also has a .register method which is being called later to add another overloaded version of __init__. This is a bit messy, but it please mypy becuase there are no method names being defined twice. If you don't care about mypy and are planning to use the external library anyway, multimethod also has simpler alternative ways of specifying overloaded versions.
Defining __repr__ is simply there to make the printed output meaningful (you don't need it in general).
Notice that multidispatch is able to handle three additional input combinations that don't have any positional parameters.
Use num_holes=None as a default, instead. Then check for whether num_holes is None, and if so, randomize. That's what I generally see, anyway.
More radically different construction methods may warrant a classmethod that returns an instance of cls.
The best answer is the one above about default arguments, but I had fun writing this, and it certainly does fit the bill for "multiple constructors". Use at your own risk.
What about the new method.
"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."
So you can have the new method modify your class definition by attaching the appropriate constructor method.
class Cheese(object):
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
obj = super(Cheese, cls).__new__(cls)
num_holes = kwargs.get('num_holes', random_holes())
if num_holes == 0:
cls.__init__ = cls.foomethod
else:
cls.__init__ = cls.barmethod
return obj
def foomethod(self, *args, **kwargs):
print "foomethod called as __init__ for Cheese"
def barmethod(self, *args, **kwargs):
print "barmethod called as __init__ for Cheese"
if __name__ == "__main__":
parm = Cheese(num_holes=5)
I'd use inheritance. Especially if there are going to be more differences than number of holes. Especially if Gouda will need to have different set of members then Parmesan.
class Gouda(Cheese):
def __init__(self):
super(Gouda).__init__(num_holes=10)
class Parmesan(Cheese):
def __init__(self):
super(Parmesan).__init__(num_holes=15)
Since my initial answer was criticised on the basis that my special-purpose constructors did not call the (unique) default constructor, I post here a modified version that honours the wishes that all constructors shall call the default one:
class Cheese:
def __init__(self, *args, _initialiser="_default_init", **kwargs):
"""A multi-initialiser.
"""
getattr(self, _initialiser)(*args, **kwargs)
def _default_init(self, ...):
"""A user-friendly smart or general-purpose initialiser.
"""
...
def _init_parmesan(self, ...):
"""A special initialiser for Parmesan cheese.
"""
...
def _init_gouda(self, ...):
"""A special initialiser for Gouda cheese.
"""
...
#classmethod
def make_parmesan(cls, *args, **kwargs):
return cls(*args, **kwargs, _initialiser="_init_parmesan")
#classmethod
def make_gouda(cls, *args, **kwargs):
return cls(*args, **kwargs, _initialiser="_init_gouda")
This is how I solved it for a YearQuarter class I had to create. I created an __init__ which is very tolerant to a wide variety of input.
You use it like this:
>>> from datetime import date
>>> temp1 = YearQuarter(year=2017, month=12)
>>> print temp1
2017-Q4
>>> temp2 = YearQuarter(temp1)
>>> print temp2
2017-Q4
>>> temp3 = YearQuarter((2017, 6))
>>> print temp3
2017-Q2
>>> temp4 = YearQuarter(date(2017, 1, 18))
>>> print temp4
2017-Q1
>>> temp5 = YearQuarter(year=2017, quarter = 3)
>>> print temp5
2017-Q3
And this is how the __init__ and the rest of the class looks like:
import datetime
class YearQuarter:
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
if len(args) == 1:
[x] = args
if isinstance(x, datetime.date):
self._year = int(x.year)
self._quarter = (int(x.month) + 2) / 3
elif isinstance(x, tuple):
year, month = x
self._year = int(year)
month = int(month)
if 1 <= month <= 12:
self._quarter = (month + 2) / 3
else:
raise ValueError
elif isinstance(x, YearQuarter):
self._year = x._year
self._quarter = x._quarter
elif len(args) == 2:
year, month = args
self._year = int(year)
month = int(month)
if 1 <= month <= 12:
self._quarter = (month + 2) / 3
else:
raise ValueError
elif kwargs:
self._year = int(kwargs["year"])
if "quarter" in kwargs:
quarter = int(kwargs["quarter"])
if 1 <= quarter <= 4:
self._quarter = quarter
else:
raise ValueError
elif "month" in kwargs:
month = int(kwargs["month"])
if 1 <= month <= 12:
self._quarter = (month + 2) / 3
else:
raise ValueError
def __str__(self):
return '{0}-Q{1}'.format(self._year, self._quarter)
class Cheese:
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
"""A user-friendly initialiser for the general-purpose constructor.
"""
...
def _init_parmesan(self, *args, **kwargs):
"""A special initialiser for Parmesan cheese.
"""
...
def _init_gauda(self, *args, **kwargs):
"""A special initialiser for Gauda cheese.
"""
...
#classmethod
def make_parmesan(cls, *args, **kwargs):
new = cls.__new__(cls)
new._init_parmesan(*args, **kwargs)
return new
#classmethod
def make_gauda(cls, *args, **kwargs):
new = cls.__new__(cls)
new._init_gauda(*args, **kwargs)
return new
I do not see a straightforward answer with an example yet. The idea is simple:
use __init__ as the "basic" constructor as python only allows one __init__ method
use #classmethod to create any other constructors and call the basic constructor
Here is a new try.
class Person:
def __init__(self, name, age):
self.name = name
self.age = age
#classmethod
def fromBirthYear(cls, name, birthYear):
return cls(name, date.today().year - birthYear)
Usage:
p = Person('tim', age=18)
p = Person.fromBirthYear('tim', birthYear=2004)
Here (drawing on this earlier answer, the pure Python version of classmethod in the docs, and as suggested by this comment) is a decorator that can be used to create multiple constructors.
from types import MethodType
from functools import wraps
class constructor:
def __init__(self, func):
#wraps(func)
def wrapped(cls, *args, **kwargs):
obj = cls.__new__(cls) # Create new instance but don't init
super(cls, obj).__init__() # Init any classes it inherits from
func(obj, *args, **kwargs) # Run the constructor with obj as self
return obj
self.wrapped = wrapped
def __get__(self, _, cls):
return MethodType(self.wrapped, cls) # Bind this constructor to the class
class Test:
def __init__(self, data_sequence):
""" Default constructor, initiates with data sequence """
self.data = [item ** 2 for item in data_sequence]
#constructor
def zeros(self, size):
""" Initiates with zeros """
self.data = [0 for _ in range(size)]
a = Test([1,2,3])
b = Test.zeros(100)
This seems the cleanest way in some cases (see e.g. multiple dataframe constructors in Pandas), where providing multiple optional arguments to a single constructor would be inconvenient: for example cases where it would require too many parameters, be unreadable, be slower or use more memory than needed. However, as earlier comments have argued, in most cases it is probably more Pythonic to route through a single constructor with optional parameters, adding class methods where needed.