In Python curses, a new window object can be created with the curses.newwin() function. How can I extend the class of the objects that are instantiated from the newwin function?
I have tried dir(curses) but couldn't find any obvious class names there for me to extend.
curses.newwin returns a extension type.
Unfortunately, you can't set attributes of extension types.
As a workaround, you can redefine curses.newwin to return a new class instance that wraps the return value of the original curses.newwin(..):
orig_newwin = curses.newwin
def newwin(*args):
win = orig_newwin(*args)
return Wrapper(win)
curses.newwin = newwin
Related
The newtypes tutorial shows you how to inherit from a base python class. Can you inherit from your own python class? Something like this?
PyObject *mod = PyImport_AddModule("foomod");
PyObject *o = PyObject_GetAttrString(mod, "BaseClass");
PyTypeObject *t = o->ob_type;
FooType.tp_base = t;
if (PyType_Ready(&FooType ) < 0) return NULL;
though you need to define your struct with the base class as the first member per the documentation so it sounds like this is not possible? ie how would I setup the Foo struct?
typedef struct {
PyListObject list;
int state;
} SubListObject;
What I'm really trying to do is subclass _UnixSelectorEventLoop and it seems like my only solution is to define a python class that derives from my C class and from _UnixSelectorEventLoop with my C class listed first so that it can override methods in the other base class.
I think you're basically right on your assessment:
it seems like my only solution is to define a python class that derives from my C class and from _UnixSelectorEventLoop with my C class listed first so that it can override methods in the other base class.
You can't define a class that inherits from a Python class because it'd need to start with a C struct of basically arbitrary size.
There's a couple of other options that you might like to consider:
You could create a class the manual way by calling PyType_Type. See this useful answer on a question about multiple inheritance which is another sort of inheritance that the C API struggles with. This probably limits you too much, since you can't have C attributes, but you can have C functions.
You could do "inheritance by composition" - i.e. have you _UnixSelectorEventLoop as part of the object, then forward __getattr__ and __setattr__ to it in the event of unknown attributes. It's probably easier to see what I mean with Python code (which is simply but tediously transformed into C API code)
class YourClass:
def __init__(self,...):
self.state = 0
self._usel = _UnixSelectorEventLoop()
def __getattr__(self, name):
return getattr(self._usel, 'name')
def __setattr__(self, name, value):
if name in self.__dict__:
object.__setattr__(self, name, value)
else:
setattr(self._usel, name, value)
# maybe __hasattr__ and __delattr__ too?
I'm hoping to avoid having to write this C API code myself, but the slots are tp_getattro and tp_setattro. Note that __getattr__ will need to be more comprehensive in the C version, since it acts closer to the __getattribute__ in Python. The flipside is that isinstance and issubclass will fail, which may or may not be an issue for you.
From time to time, I would like to call a class differently depending on the context or to reduce duplication.
Let's assume, I have the following classes defined:
// in file a.dart
class A {
final String someprop;
A(this.someprop)
}
// in file b.dart
abstract class BInterface {
String get someprop;
}
class B = A with EmptyMixin implements BInterface;
For this syntax to check out, I have to define EmptyMixin so that the syntax is OK.
Do you know of a better/prettier way to do this "aliasing" in Dart?
I'm afraid the way you're doing it is the prettiest way to do this at the moment. There is a very old, but still open and active issue: https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/2626 that proposes the typedef B = A; syntax for aliasing types.
I'm currently testing some simple AngelScript stuff, and noticed something I find a bit strange when it comes to how objects are initialized from classes.
Let's say I define a class like this:
class MyClass {
int i;
MyClass(int i) {
this.i = i;
}
}
I can create an object of this class by doing this:
MyClass obj = MyClass(5);
However it seems I can also create an object by doing this:
MyClass obj;
The problem here is that obj.i becomes a default value as it is undefined.
Additionally, adding a default constructor to my class and a print function call in each one reveals that when I do MyClass obj = MyClass(5); BOTH constructors are called, not just the one with the matching parameter. This seems risky to me, as it could initialize a lot of properties unnecessarily for this "ghost" instance.
I can avoid this double-initialization by using a handle, but this seems more like a work-around rather than a solution:
MyClass# obj = MyClass(5);
So my question sums up to:
Can I require a specific constructor to be called?
Can I prevent a default constructor from running?
What's the proper way to deal with required parameters when creating objects?
Mind that this is purely in the AngelScript script language, completely separate from the C++ code of the host application. The host is from 2010 and is not open-source, and my knowledge of their implementation is very limited, so if the issue lies there, I can't change it.
In order to declare class and send the value you choose to constructor try:
MyClass obj(5);
To prevent using default constructor create it and use:
.
MyClass()
{
abort("Trying to create uninitialized object of type that require init parameters");
}
or
{
exit(1);
}
or
{
assert(1>2,"Trying to create uninitialized object of type that require init parameters");
}
or
{
engine.Exit();
}
in case that any of those is working in you environment.
declaring the constructor as private seems not to work in AS, unlike other languages.
I have already asked a question here where I basically require an instance of a base class to be converted into a subclass (or a new instance of the subclass to be created using the instance of the base class' properties). The conclusion seems to be that the best way to do this is to manually assign every property I need to transfer in the constructor of the base class.
While this is feasible in some cases, it certainly is not when there are many properties to transfer, or when the base class is subject to change — every time you add a property to the base class, the constructor needs to be changed too, so this solutions is inelegant.
I have searched online, and can't see any reason for why this kind of type-casting isn't implemented. The arguments I have seen so far describe this operation to 'not make any sense' (making a minivan from a car was an analogy I saw), question what to do about the non-inherited variables in the subclass, or claim that there must be some better solution for what was trying to be achieved.
As far as I can see, the operation doesn't need to 'make sense' as long as it's useful, so that isn't much of a good reason. What's wrong with adding a few more properties (and perhaps methods/overriding them) to change an instance into a subclass? In the case of the non-inherited variables, that can simply be solved by allowing this kind of type-cast only a constructor is added to the subclass or by just simply setting them to their default values. After all, constructors usually call MyBase.New(...) anyway. What's the difference between using the constructor of the base (essentially creating a new instance of the base) and using an instance which is already initialised? Lastly, I don't think the third argument is well-justified — there are times when all of the other solutions are inelegant.
So finally, is there any other reason for why this kind of casting isn't allowed, and is there an elegant way to circumvent this?
Edit:
Since I don't know a lot about this topic, I think I meant to say 'convert' rather than 'cast'. I'll also add an example to show what I'm trying to succeed. The conversion would only be allowed at the initialisation of the Subclass:
Class BaseClass
Dim x as Integer
Dim y as Integer
End Class
Class Subclass1 : Inherits BaseClass
Dim z as Integer
Sub New(Byval value As Integer)
'Standard initialisation method
MyBase.New()
z = value
End Sub
Sub New(Byval value As Integer, Byval baseInstance As BaseClass)
'Type conversion from base class to subclass
baseInstance.passAllproperties()
'This assigns all properties of baseInstance belonging to BaseClass to Me.
'Properties not in BaseClass (eg. if baseInstance is Subclass2) are ignored.
z = value
End Sub
End Class
Class Subclass2 : Inherits BaseClass
Dim v As Integer
End Class
What you describe is not casting. Have you ever heard the expression"to cast something in a different light"? It means to look at the same thing in a different way or to make the same thing look different. That is the exact way that the term "cast" is used in programming. When you cast, you do NOT change the type of the object but only the type of the reference used to access the object. If you want to cast from a base type to a derived type then the object you're referring to has to actually be that derived type. If it's not then you're not performing a cast but rather a conversion.
So, why can't you convert an instance of a base type to an instance of a derived type. Well, why would you be able to? Yes, it's something that might save writing a bit of code on occasion but does it actually make sense? Let's say that you have a base type with one property and a derived type that adds another property. Let's also say that that derived type has constructors that require you to provide a value for that second property. You're suggesting that the language should provide you with a way to magically convert an instance of the base class into an instance of the derived class, which would mean it would have to slow you to circumvent that rule defined by the author via the constructors. Why would that be a good thing?
Use System.Reflection to iterate over properties and fields of the base class and apply them to the derived class. This example includes a single public property and single public field, but will also work with multiple private/protected properties and fields. You can paste the entire example into a new console application to test it.
Imports System.Reflection
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Dim p As New Parent
p.Property1 = "abc"
p.Field1 = "def"
Dim c = New Child(p)
Console.WriteLine("Property1 = ""{0}"", Field1 = ""{1}""", c.Property1, c.Field1)
Console.ReadLine()
End Sub
Class Parent
Public Property Property1 As String = "not set"
Public Property Field1 As String = "not set"
End Class
Class Child
Inherits Parent
Public Sub New(myParent As Parent)
Dim fieldInfo = GetType(Parent).GetFields(BindingFlags.NonPublic _
Or BindingFlags.Instance)
For Each field In fieldInfo
field.SetValue(Me, field.GetValue(myParent))
Next
Dim propertyInfo = GetType(Parent).GetProperties(BindingFlags.NonPublic _
Or BindingFlags.Instance)
For Each prop In propertyInfo
prop.SetValue(Me, prop.GetValue(myParent))
Next
End Sub
End Class
End Module
Output:
Property1 = "abc", Field1 = "def"
This solution is automated, so you won't need to change anything when adding or removing properties and fields in the base class.
In general, because of this:
Class TheBase
End Class
Class Derived1 : TheBase
Sub Foo()
End Sub
End Class
Class Derived2 : TheBase
Sub Bar()
End Sub
End Class
Sub Main()
Dim myDerived1 As New Derived1
' cast derived to base
Dim myTheBase = CType(myDerived1, TheBase)
' cast base to derived?
' but myTheBase is actually a Derived1
Dim myDerived2 As Derived2 = CType(myTheBase, Derived2)
' which function call would you like to succeed?
myDerived2.Foo()
myDerived2.Bar()
End Sub
I need to create global JS variable in my Scala js.
How this can be done?
Via Facade Type
Make an object that extends js.GlobalScope:
object MyGlobal extends js.GlobalScope {
var globalVar: String
}
Then, just assign to it:
MyGlobal.globalVar = "foo"
Via Dynamic interface
js.Dynamic.global.globalVar = "foo"
Caveat
Both of these methods need code to be executed before the variable is set to anything. There is currently no way to directly export a top-level value in Scala.js without executing code (see #1381).
If you want to export the g shortcut:
import scala.scalajs.js
import js.Dynamic.{ global => g }
g.myVar = "foo"