self is only a reference to the current instance within the method. You can't change your instance by setting self .
The self is used to represent the instance of the class. With this keyword, you can access the attributes and methods of the class in python. It binds the attributes with the given arguments. The reason why we use self is that Python does not use the '@' syntax to refer to instance attributes.
The use of self makes it easier to distinguish between instance attributes (and methods) from local variables. In the first example, self. x is an instance attribute whereas x is a local variable. They are not the same and they lie in different namespaces.
self is the first method of every Python class Some programming languages use the word this to represent that instance, but in Python we use the word self . When you define a class in Python, every method that you define, must accept that instance as its first argument (called self by convention).
Disclaimer: It seems that several people are concerned about presenting this solution, so I will provide a very clear disclaimer. You should not use this solution. I only provide it as information, so you know that the language is capable of this. The rest of the answer is just showing language capabilities, not endorsing using them in this way.
There isn't really anything wrong with explicitly copying parameters into attributes. If you have too many parameters in the ctor, it is sometimes considered a code smell and maybe you should group these params into a fewer objects. Other times, it is necessary and there is nothing wrong with it. Anyway, doing it explicitly is the way to go.
However, since you are asking HOW it can be done (and not whether it should be done), then one solution is this:
class A:
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
for key in kwargs:
setattr(self, key, kwargs[key])
a = A(l=1, d=2)
a.l # will return 1
a.d # will return 2
Edit: If you have python 3.7+ just use dataclasses
A decorator solution that keeps the signature:
import decorator
import inspect
import sys
@decorator.decorator
def simple_init(func, self, *args, **kws):
"""
@simple_init
def __init__(self,a,b,...,z)
dosomething()
behaves like
def __init__(self,a,b,...,z)
self.a = a
self.b = b
...
self.z = z
dosomething()
"""
#init_argumentnames_without_self = ['a','b',...,'z']
if sys.version_info.major == 2:
init_argumentnames_without_self = inspect.getargspec(func).args[1:]
else:
init_argumentnames_without_self = tuple(inspect.signature(func).parameters.keys())[1:]
positional_values = args
keyword_values_in_correct_order = tuple(kws[key] for key in init_argumentnames_without_self if key in kws)
attribute_values = positional_values + keyword_values_in_correct_order
for attribute_name,attribute_value in zip(init_argumentnames_without_self,attribute_values):
setattr(self,attribute_name,attribute_value)
# call the original __init__
func(self, *args, **kws)
class Test():
@simple_init
def __init__(self,a,b,c,d=4):
print(self.a,self.b,self.c,self.d)
#prints 1 3 2 4
t = Test(1,c=2,b=3)
#keeps signature
#prints ['self', 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd']
if sys.version_info.major == 2:
print(inspect.getargspec(Test.__init__).args)
else:
print(inspect.signature(Test.__init__))
As others have mentioned, the repetition isn't bad, but in some cases a namedtuple can be a great fit for this type of issue. This avoids using locals() or kwargs, which are usually a bad idea.
from collections import namedtuple
# declare a new object type with three properties; x y z
# the first arg of namedtuple is a typename
# the second arg is comma-separated or space-separated property names
XYZ = namedtuple("XYZ", "x, y, z")
# create an object of type XYZ. properties are in order
abc = XYZ("one", "two", 3)
print abc.x
print abc.y
print abc.z
I've found limited use for it, but you can inherit a namedtuple as with any other object (example continued):
class MySuperXYZ(XYZ):
""" I add a helper function which returns the original properties """
def properties(self):
return self.x, self.y, self.z
abc2 = MySuperXYZ(4, "five", "six")
print abc2.x
print abc2.y
print abc2.z
print abc2.properties()
Explicit is better than implicit ... so sure, you could make it more concise:
def __init__(self,a,b,c):
for k,v in locals().items():
if k != "self":
setattr(self,k,v)
The better question is: should you?
... that said if you want a named tuple I would recommend using a namedtuple (remember tuples have certain conditions attached to them) ... perhaps you want an OrderedDict or even just a dict ...
To expand on gruszczy
s answer, I have used a pattern like:
class X:
x = None
y = None
z = None
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
for (k, v) in kwargs.items():
if hasattr(self, k):
setattr(self, k, v)
else:
raise TypeError('Unknown keyword argument: {:s}'.format(k))
I like this method because it:
super().__init(...)
)X.__init__
Prior to Python 3.6, this gives no control over the order in which the attributes are set, which could be a problem if some attributes are properties with setters that access other attributes.
It could probably be improved upon a bit, but I'm the only user of my own code so I am not worried about any form of input sanitation. Perhaps an AttributeError
would be more appropriate.
You could also do:
locs = locals()
for arg in inspect.getargspec(self.__init__)[0][1:]:
setattr(self, arg, locs[arg])
Of course, you would have to import the inspect
module.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With