This is an unusual question, but I'd like to dynamically generate the __slots__ attribute of the class based on whatever attributes I happened to have added to the class.
For example, if I have a class:
class A(object):
one = 1
two = 2
__slots__ = ['one', 'two']
I'd like to do this dynamically rather than specifying the arguments by hand, how would I do this?
At the point you're trying to define slots, the class hasn't been built yet, so you cannot define it dynamically from within the A class.
To get the behaviour you want, use a metaclass to introspect the definition of A and add a slots attribute.
class MakeSlots(type):
def __new__(cls, name, bases, attrs):
attrs['__slots__'] = attrs.keys()
return super(MakeSlots, cls).__new__(cls, name, bases, attrs)
class A(object):
one = 1
two = 2
__metaclass__ = MakeSlots
__slots__. It doesn't work because the names, besides being in the newly created __slots__, are also in the class overriding the __slots__ memberdescriptors, and what we end up with is AttributeError: 'A' object has no attribute 'one'AttributeError: 'A' object attribute 'one' is read-onlyvars(), and do it last.One very important thing to be aware of -- if those attributes stay in the class, the __slots__ generation will be useless... okay, maybe not useless -- it will make the class attributes read-only; probably not what you want.
The easy way is to say, "Okay, I'll initialize them to None, then let them disappear." Excellent! Here's one way to do that:
class B(object):
three = None
four = None
temp = vars() # get the local namespace as a dict()
__slots__ = temp.keys() # put their names into __slots__
__slots__.remove('temp') # remove non-__slots__ names
__slots__.remove('__module__') # now remove the names from the local
for name in __slots__: # namespace so we don't get read-only
del temp[name] # class attributes
del temp # and get rid of temp
If you want to keep those initial values it takes a bit more work... here's one possible solution:
class B(object):
three = 3
four = 4
def __init__(self):
for key, value in self.__init__.defaults.items():
setattr(self, key, value)
temp = vars()
__slots__ = temp.keys()
__slots__.remove('temp')
__slots__.remove('__module__')
__slots__.remove('__init__')
__init__.defaults = dict()
for name in __slots__:
__init__.defaults[name] = temp[name]
del temp[name]
del temp
As you can see, it is possible to do this without a metaclass -- but who wants all that boilerplate? A metaclass could definitely help us clean this up:
class MakeSlots(type):
def __new__(cls, name, bases, attrs):
new_attrs = {}
new_attrs['__slots__'] = slots = attrs.keys()
slots.remove('__module__')
slots.remove('__metaclass__')
new_attrs['__weakref__'] = None
new_attrs['__init__'] = init = new_init
init.defaults = dict()
for name in slots:
init.defaults[name] = attrs[name]
return super(MakeSlots, cls).__new__(cls, name, bases, new_attrs)
def new_init(self):
for key, value in self.__init__.defaults.items():
setattr(self, key, value)
class A(object):
__metaclass__ = MakeSlots
one = 1
two = 2
class B(object):
__metaclass__ = MakeSlots
three = 3
four = 4
Now all the tediousness is kept in the metaclass, and the actual class is easy to read and (hopefully!) understand.
If you need to have anything else in these classes besides attributes I strongly suggest you put whatever it is in a mixin class -- having them directly in the final class would complicate the metaclass even more.
