why defined '__new__' and '__init__' all in a class

Question

i think you can defined either '__init__' or '__new__' in a class,but why all defined in django.utils.datastructures.py.

my code:

class a(object):
    def __init__(self):
        print  'aaa'
    def __new__(self):
        print 'sss'

a()#print 'sss'

class b:
    def __init__(self):
        print  'aaa'
    def __new__(self):
        print 'sss'
b()#print 'aaa'

datastructures.py:

class SortedDict(dict):
    """
    A dictionary that keeps its keys in the order in which they're inserted.
    """
    def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
        instance = super(SortedDict, cls).__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
        instance.keyOrder = []
        return instance

    def __init__(self, data=None):
        if data is None:
            data = {}
        super(SortedDict, self).__init__(data)
        if isinstance(data, dict):
            self.keyOrder = data.keys()
        else:
            self.keyOrder = []
            for key, value in data:
                if key not in self.keyOrder:
                    self.keyOrder.append(key)

and what circumstances the SortedDict.__init__ will be call.

thanks

Answer 1

You can define either or both of __new__ and __init__.

__new__ must return an object -- which can be a new one (typically that task is delegated to type.__new__), an existing one (to implement singletons, "recycle" instances from a pool, and so on), or even one that's not an instance of the class. If __new__ returns an instance of the class (new or existing), __init__ then gets called on it; if __new__ returns an object that's not an instance of the class, then __init__ is not called.

__init__ is passed a class instance as its first item (in the same state __new__ returned it, i.e., typically "empty") and must alter it as needed to make it ready for use (most often by adding attributes).

In general it's best to use __init__ for all it can do -- and __new__, if something is left that __init__ can't do, for that "extra something".

So you'll typically define both if there's something useful you can do in __init__, but not everything you want to happen when the class gets instantiated.

For example, consider a class that subclasses int but also has a foo slot -- and you want it to be instantiated with an initializer for the int and one for the .foo. As int is immutable, that part has to happen in __new__, so pedantically one could code:

>>> class x(int):
...   def __new__(cls, i, foo):
...     self = int.__new__(cls, i)
...     return self
...   def __init__(self, i, foo):
...     self.foo = foo
...   __slots__ = 'foo',
... 
>>> a = x(23, 'bah')
>>> print a
23
>>> print a.foo
bah
>>> 

In practice, for a case this simple, nobody would mind if you lost the __init__ and just moved the self.foo = foo to __new__. But if initialization is rich and complex enough to be best placed in __init__, this idea is worth keeping in mind.

Answer 2

__new__ and __init__ do completely different things. The method __init__ initiates a new instance of a class --- it is a constructor. __new__ is a far more subtle thing --- it can change arguments and, in fact, the class of the initiated object. For example, the following code:

class Meters(object):
    def __new__(cls, value):
        return int(value / 3.28083)

If you call Meters(6) you will not actually create an instance of Meters, but an instance of int. You might wonder why this is useful; it is actually crucial to metaclasses, an admittedly obscure (but powerful) feature.

You'll note that in Python 2.x, only classes inheriting from object can take advantage of __new__, as you code above shows.

The use of __new__ you showed in django seems to be an attempt to keep a sane method resolution order on SortedDict objects. I will admit, though, that it is often hard to tell why __new__ is necessary. Standard Python style suggests that it not be used unless necessary (as always, better class design is the tool you turn to first).