Sometimes I create a class and its only used to store some values or static methods and I never want to create an instance.
Is there some way to express this in Python3?
Eg:
class MyClass:
#staticmethod
def hello():
print("world")
# is there a better way to do this?
def __init__(self):
raise Exception("instantiation isnt supported for this class!")
# OK
MyClass.hello()
# NOT OK
c = MyClass()
You can use the objectless baseclass found in this answer (which is actually an answer to a different question).
class objectless:
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
raise RuntimeError('%s should not be instantiated' % cls)
class UninstantiateableClass(objectless):
#classmethod
def foo(cls):
return 'bar'
...
Note that in python2, objectless should explicitly subclass object, in order to be a new-style class.
Related
Consider the following case:
trait A {
protected val mydata = ???
def f(args) = ??? //uses mydata
}
class B
class C
class D(arg1: String) extends B with A {
override val mydata = ??? /// some calculation based on arg1
}
class E(arg1: String) extends C with A{
override val mydata = ??? /// some calculation based on arg1
}
A must be a trait as it is used by different unrelated classes. The problem is how to implement the definition of mydata.
The standard way (suggested in many places would be to define mydata as def and override it in the children. However, if f assumes mydata never changes then it can cause issues when some child extends with a function which changes between calls instead of with a val.
Another way would be to do:
trait A {
protected val mydata = g
protected def g()
}
The problem with this (beyond adding another function) is that if g depends on construction variables in the child then these must become members of the child (which can be a problem for example if the data is large and given in the construction):
class D(arg1: Seq[String]) {
def g() = ??? // some operation on arg1
}
If I leave the val in the trait as abstract I can reach issues such as those found here).
What I am looking for is a way to define the value of the val in the children, ensuring it would be a val and without having to save data for late calculations. Something similar as to how in java I can define a final val and fill it in the constructor
The standard way (suggested in many places would be to define mydata as def and override it in the children... If I leave the val in the trait as abstract I can reach issues such as those found here).
This is a common misunderstanding, shown in the accepted answer to the linked question as well. The issue is implementing as a val, which you require anyway. Having a concrete val which is overridden only makes it worse: abstract one can at least be implemented by a lazy val. The only way to avoid the issue for you is to ensure mydata is not accessed in a constructor of A or its subtypes, directly or indirectly, until it's initialized. Using it in f is safe (provided f is not called in a constructor, again, which would be an indirect access to mydata).
If you can ensure this requirement, then
trait A {
protected val mydata
def f(args) = ??? //uses mydata
}
class D(arg1: String) extends B with A {
override val mydata = ??? /// some calculation based on arg1
}
class E(arg1: String) extends C with A{
override val mydata = ??? /// some calculation based on arg1
}
is exactly the correct definition.
If you can't, then you have to live with your last solution despite the drawback, but mydata needs to be lazy to avoid similar initialization order issues, which would already give the same drawback on its own.
I am trying to initialize a derived class from text file input. A simple example of what I am trying to do:
file.txt:
1
2
main.py:
class Base:
def __init__(self, val1):
self.val1 = val1
def input_from_text(cls, init_deque):
#return cls(init_deque.popleft())
class Derived(Base):
def __init__(self, val1, val2):
Base.__init__(self, val1)
self.val2 = val2
def input_from_text(cls, init_deque):
#initialize base and derived here and return derived
def main(argv=None):
initialized_derived = Derived.input_from_text(deque(open("file.txt")))
assert initialized_derived.val1 is 1
assert initialized_derived.val2 is 2
Is there a good way to do this? Basically looking for something similar to what you would find in C++ with:
//calls operator>>(Base) then operator>>(Derived)
cin >> initialized_derived;
This way each class is nicely encapsulated and the base/derived classes don't need to know anything about each other (excepting __init__ which knows the number of args base takes).
Just realized that I was going about this the wrong way. Simple fix is to do something like:
class Base:
def __init__(self):
pass
def input_from_text(self, init_deque):
self.val1 = init_deque.popleft()
class Derived(Base):
def __init__(self):
Base.__init__(self)
def input_from_text(self, init_deque):
Base.input_from_text(self, init_deque)
self.val2 = init_deque.popleft()
I have the following setup:
trait A
{
def doSomething(): Unit;
}
object B extends A
{
override def doSomething(): Unit =
{
// Implementation
}
}
class B(creator: String) extends A
{
override def doSomething(): Unit =
{
B.doSomething() // Now this is just completely unnecessary, but the compiler of course insists upon implementing the method
}
}
Now you may wonder why I even do this, why I let the class extend the trait as well.
The problem is, that somewhere in the Program there is a Collection of A.
So somewhere:
private val aList: ListBuffer[A] = new ListBuffer[A]
and in there, I also have to put Bs (among other derivates, namely C and D)
So I can't just let the B-class not extend it.
As the implementation is the same for all instances, I want to use an Object.
But there is also a reason I really need this Object. Because there is a class:
abstract class Worker
{
def getAType(): A
def do(): Unit =
{
getAType().doSomething()
}
}
class WorkerA
{
def getAType(): A =
{
return B
}
}
Here the singleton/object of B gets returned. This is needed for the implementation of do() in the Worker.
To summarize:
The object B is needed because of the generic implementation in do() (Worker-Class) and also because doSomething() never changes.
The class B is needed because in the collection of the BaseType A there are different instances of B with different authors.
As both the object and the class have to implement the trait for above reasons I'm in kind of a dilemma here. I couldn't find a satisfying solution that looks neater.
So, my question is (It turns out as a non-native-speaker I should've clarified this more)
Is there any way to let a class extend a trait (or class) and say that any abstract-method implementation should be looked up in the object instead of the class, so that I must only implement "doSomething()" (from the trait) once (in the object)? As I said, the trait fulfills two different tasks here.
One being a BaseType so that the collection can get instances of the class. The other being a contract to ensure the doSomething()-method is there in every object.
So the Object B needs to extend the trait, because a trait is like a Java interface and every (!) Object B (or C, or D) needs to have that method. (So the only option I see -> define an interface/trait and make sure the method is there)
edit: In case anyone wonders. How I really solved the problem: I implemented two traits.
Now for one class (where I need it) I extend both and for the other I only extend one. So I actually never have to implement any method that is not absolutely necessary :)
As I wrote in the comment section, it's really unclear to me what you're asking.
However, looking at your code examples, it seems to me that trait A isn't really required.
You can use the types that already come with the Scala SDK:
object B extends (()=>Unit) {
def apply() { /* implementation */ }
}
Or, as a variant:
object B {
val aType:()=>Unit = {() => /* implementation */ }
}
In the first case, you can access the singleton instance with B, in the second case with B.aType.
In the second case, no explicit declaration of the apply method is needed.
Pick what you like.
The essential message is: You don't need a trait if you just define one simple method.
That's what Scala functions are for.
The list type might look like this:
private val aList:ListBuffer[()=>Unit] = ???
(By the way: Why not declare it as Seq[()=>Unit]? Is it important to the caller that it is a ListBuffer and not some other kind of sequence?)
Your worker might then look like this:
abstract class Worker {
def aType:()=>Unit // no need for the `get` prefix here, or the empty parameter list
def do() {aType()}
}
Note that now the Worker type has become a class that offers a method that invokes a function.
So, there is really no need to have a Worker class.
You can just take the function (aType) directly and invoke it, just so.
If you always want to call the implementation in object B, well - just do that then.
There is no need to wrap the call in instances of other types.
Your example class B just forwards the call to the B object, which is really unnecessary.
There is no need to even create an instance of B.
It does have the private member variable creator, but since it's never used, it will never be accessed in any way.
So, I would recommend to completely remove the class B.
All you need is the type ()=>Unit, which is exactly what you need: A function that takes no parameters and returns nothing.
If you get tired of writing ()=>Unit all the time, you can define a type alias, for example inside the package object.
Here is my recommentation:
type SideEffect = ()=>Unit
Then you can use SideEffect as an alias for ()=>Unit.
That's all I can make of it.
It looks to me that this is probably not what you were looking for.
But maybe this will help you a little bit along the way.
If you want to have a more concrete answer, it would be nice if you would clarify the question.
object B doesn't really have much to do with class B aside from some special rules.
If you wish to reuse that doSomething method you should just reuse the implementation from the object:
class B {
def doSomething() = B.doSomething()
}
If you want to specify object B as a specific instance of class B then you should do the following:
object B extends B("some particular creator") {
...
}
You also do not need override modifiers although they can be handy for compiler checks.
The notion of a companion object extending a trait is useful for defining behavior associated with the class itself (e.g. static methods) as opposed to instances of the class. In other words, it allows your static methods to implement interfaces. Here's an example:
import java.nio.ByteBuffer
// a trait to be implemented by the companion object of a class
// to convey the fixed size of any instance of that class
trait Sized { def size: Int }
// create a buffer based on the size information provided by the
// companion object
def createBuffer(sized: Sized): ByteBuffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(sized.size)
class MyClass(x: Long) {
def writeTo(buffer: ByteBuffer) { buffer.putLong(x) }
}
object MyClass extends Sized {
def size = java.lang.Long.SIZE / java.lang.Byte.SIZE
}
// create a buffer with correct sizing for MyClass whose companion
// object implements Sized. Note that we don't need an instance
// of MyClass to obtain sizing information.
val buf = createBuffer(MyClass)
// write an instance of MyClass to the buffer.
val c = new MyClass(42)
c.writeTo(buf)
class A(object):
def foo(self):
print 'A'
class B(A):
def foo(self):
print 'B'
class C(B):
pass
c = C()
c.foo()
>>> B
I want to call the foo() method of class A. So how can I call this foo() method so that it will print 'A'
To directly answer your question, you could define C like this:
class C(B):
def foo(self):
A.foo(self)
However, a better question might be: why are you trying to do this? A class needing to access functions from the, erm, "grandparent" that were also defined in the parent class is a pretty good sign that your inheritance model is not ideal. For example: does C need anything from B; could it inherit directly from A?
I've looked at example of logging in Scala, and it usually looks like this:
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory
trait Loggable {
private lazy val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass)
protected def debug(msg: => AnyRef, t: => Throwable = null): Unit =
{...}
}
This seems independent of the concrete logging framework. While this does the job, it also introduces an extraneous lazy val in every instance that wants to do logging, which might well be every instance of the whole application. This seems much too heavy to me, in particular if you have many "small instances" of some specific type.
Is there a way of putting the logger in the object of the concrete class instead, just by using inheritance? If I have to explicitly declare the logger in the object of the class, and explicitly refer to it from the class/trait, then I have written almost as much code as if I had done no reuse at all.
Expressed in a non-logging specific context, the problem would be:
How do I declare in a trait that the implementing class must have a singleton object of type X, and that this singleton object must be accessible through method def x: X ?
I can't simply define an abstract method, because there could only be a single implementation in the class. I want that logging in a super-class gets me the super-class singleton, and logging in the sub-class gets me the sub-class singleton. Or put more simply, I want logging in Scala to work like traditional logging in Java, using static loggers specific to the class doing the logging. My current knowledge of Scala tells me that this is simply not possible without doing it exactly the same way you do in Java, without much if any benefits from using the "better" Scala.
Premature Optimization is the root of all evil
Let's be clear first about one thing: if your trait looks something like this:
trait Logger { lazy val log = Logger.getLogger }
Then what you have not done is as follows:
You have NOT created a logger instance per instance of your type
You have neither given yourself a memory nor a performance problem (unless you have)
What you have done is as follows:
You have an extra reference in each instance of your type
When you access the logger for the first time, you are probably doing some map lookup
Note that, even if you did create a separate logger for each instance of your type (which I frequently do, even if my program contains hundreds of thousands of these, so that I have very fine-grained control over my logging), you almost certainly still will neither have a performance nor a memory problem!
One "solution" is (of course), to make the companion object implement the logger interface:
object MyType extends Logger
class MyType {
import MyType._
log.info("Yay")
}
How do I declare in a trait that the
implementing class must have a
singleton object of type X, and that
this singleton object must be
accessible through method def x: X ?
Declare a trait that must be implemented by your companion objects.
trait Meta[Base] {
val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass)
}
Create a base trait for your classes, sub-classes have to overwrite the meta method.
trait Base {
def meta: Meta[Base]
def logger = meta.logger
}
A class Whatever with a companion object:
object Whatever extends Meta[Base]
class Whatever extends Base {
def meta = Whatever
def doSomething = {
logger.log("oops")
}
}
In this way you only need to have a reference to the meta object.
We can use the Whatever class like this.
object Sample {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val whatever = new Whatever
whatever.doSomething
}
}
I'm not sure I understand your question completely. So I apologize up front if this is not the answer you are looking for.
Define an object were you put your logger into, then create a companion trait.
object Loggable {
private val logger = "I'm a logger"
}
trait Loggable {
import Loggable._
def debug(msg: String) {
println(logger + ": " + msg)
}
}
So now you can use it like this:
scala> abstract class Abstraction
scala> class Implementation extends Abstraction with Loggable
scala> val test = new Implementation
scala> test.debug("error message")
I'm a logger: error message
Does this answer your question?
I think you cannot automatically get the corresponding singleton object of a class or require that such a singleton exists.
One reason is that you cannot know the type of the singleton before it is defined. Not sure, if this helps or if it is the best solution to your problem, but if you want to require some meta object to be defined with a specific trait, you could define something like:
trait HasSingleton[Traits] {
def meta: Traits
}
trait Log {
def classname: String
def log { println(classname) }
}
trait Debug {
def debug { print("Debug") }
}
class A extends HasSingleton[Log] {
def meta = A // Needs to be defined with a Singleton (or any object which inherits from Log}
def f {
meta.log
}
}
object A extends Log {
def classname = "A"
}
class B extends HasSingleton[Log with Debug] { // we want to use Log and Debug here
def meta = B
def g {
meta.log
meta.debug
}
}
object B extends Log with Debug {
def classname = "B"
}
(new A).f
// A
(new B).g
// B
// Debug