Programming Forums > Script Programming > Python

Sane · Jun 2nd, 2006, 9:27 PM

I'm trying to achieve a simple solution to requiring to pack a value alongside an integer, so it can be easily remembered at a later time.

(Toggle Plain Text)

class keep_index:
    def __init__(self, value, index):
        self.value = str(value)
        self.index = index
        
    def __call__(self):
        return self.index
    
    def __str__(self):
        return self.value

x = keep_index(4, 1)
print x
print x()

As you can see, this works. Printing x, prints out 4. But calling it returns a value I added alongside it. However, it is a string in my example, not an integer. I have tried __int__ instead of __str__ of course. That was my first attempt, but that doesn't work.

Since I got this far by trial and error by dir()'ing some of the classes like "int" and "str", I may be missing something blatantly obvious. Sorry to be a pain.

Another problem, is if I put 'x' inside a list, and print the list, it displays the function address rather then the value of ".value". And I'd rather not change the concept behind how this is working. I believe that packing an "invisible" value alongside the original would work beautifully.

Sane · Jun 2nd, 2006, 10:24 PM

Some progress has been made. Changing __str__ to __repr__ allowed it to appear properly inside lists. However, it's still a string and not an integer (best case scenario might even be boolean).

Arevos · Jun 3rd, 2006, 6:06 AM

This seems an odd request - would it not be more readable to refer to the index by obj.index instead of obj()?

Regardless, if I'm understanding you right, you can get the functionality you want by subclassing the int type:

(Toggle Plain Text)

class keep_index(int):
    def __new__(cls, value, index):
        obj = int.__new__(cls, value)
        obj.index = index
        return obj
    def __call__(self):
        return self.index

The int type appears to use __new__ for setup, rather than __init__, which is why I had to override __new__ in order to get it to accept two parameters.

Sane · Jun 3rd, 2006, 8:57 AM

That's excellent. Thanks. So does that work by inheriting the class "int"? I've only worked with class inheritance for wxPython and it looks like fun. Do you have any quick programming challenges you can think of that involve making inherited classes?

Your solution also solved the problem that it wasn't evaluating boolean expressions properly. I had to add more methods like __gt__, __ge__, to get it to work properly before.

Arevos · Jun 3rd, 2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sane

That's excellent. Thanks. So does that work by inheriting the class "int"?

Yep. You're essentially extending integer class by adding some extra functionality onto it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sane

I've only worked with class inheritance for wxPython and it looks like fun. Do you have any quick programming challenges you can think of that involve making inherited classes?

How about: create a new list object such that len, map and filter are methods of the class. e.g.

(Toggle Plain Text)

mylist = advanced_list(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
print mylist.len()
print mylist.filter(lambda x : (x % 2) == 0)
print mylist.map(lambda x: x * 2)

Metaclasses, types, and the __new__ method are also some interesting topics to study. For instance, did you know that the type method can also be used to construct new classes dynamically?

Sane · Jun 3rd, 2006, 10:39 AM

Thanks a bunch.

(Toggle Plain Text)

class advanced_list(list):
    def __init__(cls, *args):
        setattr(cls, 'len', cls._len)
        setattr(cls, 'filter', cls._filter)
        setattr(cls, 'map', cls._map)
        
        obj = list.__init__(cls, list(args))
        return obj
    
    def _len(self):
        return len(self)

    def _filter(self, func):
        return filter(func, self)

    def _map(self, func):
        return map(func, self)


mylist = advanced_list(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
print mylist.len()
print mylist.filter(lambda x : (x % 2) == 0)
print mylist.map(lambda x: x * 2)

Arevos · Jun 3rd, 2006, 11:02 AM

Pretty good

- Although you don't have to do the "return obj" stuff. That's only for __new__, not __init__. The difference between __new__ and __init__ is subtle, but worth knowing.

Take the following object creation code (note that Foobar has to be a new-style class) :

(Toggle Plain Text)

obj = Foobar(1, 2)

The above code is equivalent to:

(Toggle Plain Text)

obj = Foobar.__new__(Foobar, 1, 2)
obj.__init__(1, 2)

In Python, the __new__ method is the constructor. It returns a new object. Interestingly, there's no limit to what object is returned; you could return anything, though typically __new__ returns a new instance of the class. The first argument of __new__ is not "self" (ie. a reference to the object), but "cls" (ie. a reference to the calling class).

The __init__ method is the initialiser. It is called after the object is constructed, and is used to give the object its initial data. The __init__ method's return value is ignored.

Returning back to your code, it can be simplified somewhat:

(Toggle Plain Text)

class advanced_list(list):
	def __init__(self, *args):
		list.__init__(self, args)

	def len(self):
		return len(self)

	def filter(self, func):
		return filter(func, self)

	def map(self, func):
		return map(func, self)

Sane · Jun 3rd, 2006, 11:05 AM

I did the setattr because it's a bad habit to use function names that are reserved.

Arevos · Jun 3rd, 2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sane

I did the setattr because it's a bad habit to use function names that are reserved.

Doesn't that only apply to functions outside of an object?

Cerulean · Jun 3rd, 2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

I did the setattr because it's a bad habit to use function names that are reserved.

Where did you get that from? You're still using function names that are reserved, just going about it indirectly using setattr. Of course it's fine to use names from functions that are built in (otherwise there wouldn't be 'read' methods on all the nice file-like objects).

Jun 2nd, 2006, 9:27 PM	#1
Sane Programming Guru Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Posts: 2,013 Rep Power: 6	More Abstract Use Of Class Methods I'm trying to achieve a simple solution to requiring to pack a value alongside an integer, so it can be easily remembered at a later time. (Toggle Plain Text) class keep_index: def __init__(self, value, index): self.value = str(value) self.index = index def __call__(self): return self.index def __str__(self): return self.value x = keep_index(4, 1) print x print x() class keep_index: def __init__(self, value, index): self.value = str(value) self.index = index def __call__(self): return self.index def __str__(self): return self.value x = keep_index(4, 1) print x print x() As you can see, this works. Printing x, prints out 4. But calling it returns a value I added alongside it. However, it is a string in my example, not an integer. I have tried __int__ instead of __str__ of course. That was my first attempt, but that doesn't work. Since I got this far by trial and error by dir()'ing some of the classes like "int" and "str", I may be missing something blatantly obvious. Sorry to be a pain. Another problem, is if I put 'x' inside a list, and print the list, it displays the function address rather then the value of ".value". And I'd rather not change the concept behind how this is working. I believe that packing an "invisible" value alongside the original would work beautifully.

Jun 3rd, 2006, 6:06 AM	#3
Arevos Programming Guru Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: England Posts: 1,499 Rep Power: 5	This seems an odd request - would it not be more readable to refer to the index by obj.index instead of obj()? Regardless, if I'm understanding you right, you can get the functionality you want by subclassing the int type: (Toggle Plain Text) class keep_index(int): def __new__(cls, value, index): obj = int.__new__(cls, value) obj.index = index return obj def __call__(self): return self.index class keep_index(int): def __new__(cls, value, index): obj = int.__new__(cls, value) obj.index = index return obj def __call__(self): return self.index The int type appears to use __new__ for setup, rather than __init__, which is why I had to override __new__ in order to get it to accept two parameters.

Jun 3rd, 2006, 10:39 AM	#6
Sane Programming Guru Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Posts: 2,013 Rep Power: 6	Thanks a bunch. (Toggle Plain Text) class advanced_list(list): def __init__(cls, args): setattr(cls, 'len', cls._len) setattr(cls, 'filter', cls._filter) setattr(cls, 'map', cls._map) obj = list.__init__(cls, list(args)) return obj def _len(self): return len(self) def _filter(self, func): return filter(func, self) def _map(self, func): return map(func, self) mylist = advanced_list(1, 2, 3, 4, 5) print mylist.len() print mylist.filter(lambda x : (x % 2) == 0) print mylist.map(lambda x: x 2) class advanced_list(list): def __init__(cls, args): setattr(cls, 'len', cls._len) setattr(cls, 'filter', cls._filter) setattr(cls, 'map', cls._map) obj = list.__init__(cls, list(args)) return obj def _len(self): return len(self) def _filter(self, func): return filter(func, self) def _map(self, func): return map(func, self) mylist = advanced_list(1, 2, 3, 4, 5) print mylist.len() print mylist.filter(lambda x : (x % 2) == 0) print mylist.map(lambda x: x 2)

Jun 3rd, 2006, 11:02 AM	#7
Arevos Programming Guru Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: England Posts: 1,499 Rep Power: 5	Pretty good - Although you don't have to do the "return obj" stuff. That's only for __new__, not __init__. The difference between __new__ and __init__ is subtle, but worth knowing. Take the following object creation code (note that Foobar has to be a new-style class) : (Toggle Plain Text) obj = Foobar(1, 2) obj = Foobar(1, 2) The above code is equivalent to: (Toggle Plain Text) obj = Foobar.__new__(Foobar, 1, 2) obj.__init__(1, 2) obj = Foobar.__new__(Foobar, 1, 2) obj.__init__(1, 2) In Python, the __new__ method is the constructor. It returns a new object. Interestingly, there's no limit to what object is returned; you could return anything, though typically __new__ returns a new instance of the class. The first argument of __new__ is not "self" (ie. a reference to the object), but "cls" (ie. a reference to the calling class). The __init__ method is the initialiser. It is called after the object is constructed, and is used to give the object its initial data. The __init__ method's return value is ignored. Returning back to your code, it can be simplified somewhat: (Toggle Plain Text) class advanced_list(list): def __init__(self, args): list.__init__(self, args) def len(self): return len(self) def filter(self, func): return filter(func, self) def map(self, func): return map(func, self) class advanced_list(list): def __init__(self, args): list.__init__(self, args) def len(self): return len(self) def filter(self, func): return filter(func, self) def map(self, func): return map(func, self)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Jun 2nd, 2006, 10:24 PM	#2
Sane Programming Guru Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Posts: 2,013 Rep Power: 6	Some progress has been made. Changing __str__ to __repr__ allowed it to appear properly inside lists. However, it's still a string and not an integer (best case scenario might even be boolean).

Jun 3rd, 2006, 8:57 AM	#4
Sane Programming Guru Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Posts: 2,013 Rep Power: 6	That's excellent. Thanks. So does that work by inheriting the class "int"? I've only worked with class inheritance for wxPython and it looks like fun. Do you have any quick programming challenges you can think of that involve making inherited classes? Your solution also solved the problem that it wasn't evaluating boolean expressions properly. I had to add more methods like __gt__, __ge__, to get it to work properly before.

Jun 3rd, 2006, 11:05 AM	#8
Sane Programming Guru Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Posts: 2,013 Rep Power: 6	I did the setattr because it's a bad habit to use function names that are reserved.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Programming Forums > Script Programming > Python

More Abstract Use Of Class Methods