Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Ian Kelly Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: using __getitem()__ correctly Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:40:44 -0700 Lines: 124 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de oBF5NLb+PmuRedDDqVQtWAad2W0JhPwhW4ZEBBsJFIjg== Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'received:209.85.223': 0.03; '(self,': 0.07; 'attributes': 0.07; 'none):': 0.07; '__init__': 0.09; 'dict': 0.09; 'item,': 0.09; 'key)': 0.09; 'loop.': 0.09; 'method:': 0.09; 'name):': 0.09; 'slices': 0.09; 'subject:()': 0.09; 'subject:using': 0.09; 'todo:': 0.09; 'stored': 0.10; 'itself.': 0.11; 'skip:# 20': 0.13; 'def': 0.13; 'wed,': 0.15; 'explicitly': 0.15; '(name,': 0.16; 'attribute,': 0.16; 'attributes,': 0.16; 'doing,': 0.16; 'involved?': 0.16; 'key):': 0.16; 'keyerror': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'sees': 0.16; 'smith"': 0.16; 'with?': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'attribute': 0.18; 'have:': 0.18; "shouldn't": 0.18; '>>>': 0.20; '2015': 0.20; 'suggested': 0.20; 'int,': 0.22; 'keyerror:': 0.22; 'keys': 0.22; 'trying': 0.22; 'am,': 0.23; 'dec': 0.23; 'written': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; "doesn't": 0.26; 'skip:" 20': 0.26; 'entered': 0.27; '(e.g.': 0.27; 'define': 0.27; 'skip:# 10': 0.27; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.27; 'said,': 0.27; 'looks': 0.29; '-0700,': 0.29; 'invoke': 0.29; "i'm": 0.30; 'print': 0.30; 'work.': 0.30; 'code': 0.30; 'class.': 0.30; "i'd": 0.31; 'supposed': 0.31; 'probably': 0.31; 'another': 0.32; 'skip:_ 10': 0.32; 'getting': 0.33; 'class': 0.33; 'problem': 0.33; 'though.': 0.33; "i'll": 0.33; 'case,': 0.34; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'instance': 0.35; 'question,': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'received:209.85': 0.36; "wasn't": 0.36; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'really': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'expect': 0.37; 'method': 0.37; 'setting': 0.37; 'there,': 0.37; 'thought': 0.37; 'seem': 0.37; 'received:209': 0.38; 'end': 0.39; 'means': 0.39; 'why': 0.39; "didn't": 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'where': 0.40; 'still': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'skip:u 10': 0.61; 'avoid': 0.61; 'body': 0.61; 'no.': 0.62; 'here.': 0.62; '30,': 0.63; 'different': 0.63; 'here:': 0.63; 'within': 0.64; 'believe': 0.66; 'here': 0.66; 'smith': 0.76; 'discovered': 0.83; 'composing': 0.84; 'dict,': 0.84; 'dict.': 0.84; 'killing': 0.84; 'to:name:python': 0.84; 'triggering': 0.84; '***': 0.95 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=1EaioGsJr4Y5WGetjcOWFk0H9xIc08zf1ibyWrnlNlg=; b=eXIk0YLkUM2vEAvD7nni5Kbv0xuD1iKqdQvym66hPIqQks0U9J6iwBmtPP7U60KT0i vTsUiSS6Q5phuPQELDfFq1N+1qR0d165Pm0+4uetaLqPv7McStiwtkyylW0p8nj8ZVX4 YHzV3lG7hfMa2Rw3JhE4tqt2+KNxBGSH6D/NdiHJEv7gUI0pWtf7r2MvwAJLqum86Vm6 v+AUzts3Ot5WNATBds7e8uCmmw+0dpoSRsuqjJDIQWjQN2bViMsOrPZJVgJeGO5lgIt2 ZdKjaVzztHvzhLn+A37pWiRzW8uPRqbR23ddia72Wp4Mi3RpW2sqOCh2NjYQ9hzEu46Y dB5A== X-Received: by 10.107.185.6 with SMTP id j6mr58508650iof.111.1451508083918; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:41:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+ Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:101010 On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Charles T. Smith wrote: > On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:35:57 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> On Dec 30, 2015 7:46 AM, "Charles T. Smith" >> wrote: >>> As is so often the case, in composing my answer to your question, I >>> discovered a number of problems in my class (e.g. I was calling >>> __getitem__() myself!), but I'm puzzled now how to proceed. I thought >>> the way you avoid triggering __getattr__() from within that was to use >>> self.__dict__[name] but that doesn't work: >>> >>> (PDB)p self.attrs.keys() >>> ['mcc', 'abc'] >>> (PDB)p self.attrs.__dict__['abc'] >>> *** KeyError: KeyError('abc',) >> >> What leads you to believe that this is triggering a call to __getattr__? >> The KeyError probably just means that the key 'abc' wasn't found in the >> dict. > > > I meant, it doesn't work because I'm not getting at the attribute Although keys() > sees it, it's not in the __dict__ attribute of attrs. If it's not there, where is it? I think you're probably getting confused because there are three different dicts at play here: * Since your attrdict class inherits from dict, self.attrs is a dict. * self.attrs.__dict__ is a *different* dict, used to store the instance attributes of self.attrs. * self.attrs.__class__.__dict__ is another different dict, used to store the class attributes of attrdict. The keys method that you're calling above is a method of the self.attrs dict, which is where your attrdict's __setattr__ is setting it. That's why you find it there but not in self.attrs.__dict__. >> print "attrdict:av:__getattr__: autovivifying ", name >> #self.__dict__.__setitem__ (name, self.__class__()) >> #self.__setitem__ (name, self.__class__()) self.__setattr__ >> (name, self.__class__()) >> >> No reason to explicitly call __setitem__ or __setattr__ here. I'd >> probably just do self[name] = self.__class__() > > > The reason I used this is to avoid trigging the __setitem__() method: > > self.__setattr__(name, self.__class__()) > > which is invoked if I use the "self[name]" syntax. But that didn't work. But the body of your __setattr__ method is just "self[name] = self.__class__()", which is the exact same code as what I suggested and will still invoke __setitem__. That said, I don't get why you're trying to avoid calling __setitem__. If you're trying to store the attribute as a dict item, as you seem to be doing, why shouldn't that dict's __setitem__ be involved? > Is it just impossible to get at attributes without going through either > __getattr__() or __getitem__()? No. >> Based on the preceding, you probably want to return the value you just >> set in the dict, correct? So just return self[name]. > > > The problem is that then triggers the __getitem__() method and I don't > know how to get to the attributes without triggering __getattr__(). > > It's the interplay of the two that's killing me. The only interplay of the two is what you have written into your class. > In the example, if I have: > > self.mcc = self.attrs.mcc > > > The crux: > > Then __getattr__() triggers for the mcc. If I try to use self.attrs['mcc'] > to get it, then that triggers __getitem__(). Okay, if the key is not an int, > I'll go and get it and return it... unfortunately that triggers __getattr__(), > an infinite loop. How precisely are you trying to store these: as an attribute, or as a dict item? If it's supposed to be in the dict, then why is your __getitem__ trying to look up an attribute to begin with? > class attrdict(dict): > def __init__ (self, name = None): > if name: > self.update (name) > print "attrdict: instantiated: ", name > > # AutoVivification > def __getattr__ (self, name): > print "attrdict:av:__getattr__: entered for ", name > if name not in self.keys(): > print "attrdict:av:__getattr__: autovivifying ", name > self[name] = self.__class__() > return self[name] > > def __getitem__ (self, key): > print "attrdict:av:__getitem__: entered for ", key > if type (key) is int: # TODO: support slices > return self.__getitem__(key) Here the method as written is just going to end up calling itself. You probably want super(attrdict, self).__getitem__(key) > return attrdict.__getattr__(self, key) And here if you really want to access the instance attributes without using __getattr__, just use self.__dict__[key]. I don't understand what it is that you're trying to accomplish here by looking the key up in the instance attributes, though. It looks very circular. I think you should clearly define where you expect the items to be stored and then only check that location.