cpython/Lib/test/test_descrtut.py

492 lines
12 KiB
Python
Raw Normal View History

# This contains most of the executable examples from Guido's descr
# tutorial, once at
#
# http://www.python.org/2.2/descrintro.html
#
# A few examples left implicit in the writeup were fleshed out, a few were
# skipped due to lack of interest (e.g., faking super() by hand isn't
# of much interest anymore), and a few were fiddled to make the output
# deterministic.
from test.test_support import sortdict
import pprint
class defaultdict(dict):
def __init__(self, default=None):
dict.__init__(self)
self.default = default
def __getitem__(self, key):
try:
return dict.__getitem__(self, key)
except KeyError:
return self.default
def get(self, key, *args):
if not args:
args = (self.default,)
return dict.get(self, key, *args)
def merge(self, other):
for key in other:
if key not in self:
self[key] = other[key]
test_1 = """
Here's the new type at work:
>>> print defaultdict # show our type
<class 'test.test_descrtut.defaultdict'>
>>> print type(defaultdict) # its metatype
<type 'type'>
>>> a = defaultdict(default=0.0) # create an instance
>>> print a # show the instance
{}
>>> print type(a) # show its type
<class 'test.test_descrtut.defaultdict'>
>>> print a.__class__ # show its class
<class 'test.test_descrtut.defaultdict'>
>>> print type(a) is a.__class__ # its type is its class
True
>>> a[1] = 3.25 # modify the instance
>>> print a # show the new value
{1: 3.25}
>>> print a[1] # show the new item
3.25
>>> print a[0] # a non-existant item
0.0
>>> a.merge({1:100, 2:200}) # use a dict method
>>> print sortdict(a) # show the result
{1: 3.25, 2: 200}
>>>
We can also use the new type in contexts where classic only allows "real"
dictionaries, such as the locals/globals dictionaries for the exec
statement or the built-in function eval():
>>> print sorted(a.keys())
[1, 2]
2006-09-06 03:51:57 -03:00
>>> exec("x = 3; print x", a)
3
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
>>> print sorted(a.keys(), key=lambda x: (str(type(x)), x))
[1, 2, '__builtins__', 'x']
>>> print a['x']
3
>>>
Now I'll show that defaultdict instances have dynamic instance variables,
just like classic classes:
>>> a.default = -1
>>> print a["noway"]
-1
>>> a.default = -1000
>>> print a["noway"]
-1000
>>> 'default' in dir(a)
True
>>> a.x1 = 100
>>> a.x2 = 200
>>> print a.x1
100
>>> d = dir(a)
>>> 'default' in d and 'x1' in d and 'x2' in d
True
>>> print sortdict(a.__dict__)
{'default': -1000, 'x1': 100, 'x2': 200}
>>>
"""
class defaultdict2(dict):
__slots__ = ['default']
def __init__(self, default=None):
dict.__init__(self)
self.default = default
def __getitem__(self, key):
try:
return dict.__getitem__(self, key)
except KeyError:
return self.default
def get(self, key, *args):
if not args:
args = (self.default,)
return dict.get(self, key, *args)
def merge(self, other):
for key in other:
if key not in self:
self[key] = other[key]
test_2 = """
The __slots__ declaration takes a list of instance variables, and reserves
space for exactly these in the instance. When __slots__ is used, other
instance variables cannot be assigned to:
>>> a = defaultdict2(default=0.0)
>>> a[1]
0.0
>>> a.default = -1
>>> a[1]
-1
>>> a.x1 = 1
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
AttributeError: 'defaultdict2' object has no attribute 'x1'
>>>
"""
test_3 = """
Introspecting instances of built-in types
For instance of built-in types, x.__class__ is now the same as type(x):
>>> type([])
<type 'list'>
>>> [].__class__
<type 'list'>
>>> list
<type 'list'>
>>> isinstance([], list)
True
>>> isinstance([], dict)
False
>>> isinstance([], object)
True
>>>
Under the new proposal, the __methods__ attribute no longer exists:
>>> [].__methods__
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
AttributeError: 'list' object has no attribute '__methods__'
>>>
Instead, you can get the same information from the list type:
>>> pprint.pprint(dir(list)) # like list.__dict__.keys(), but sorted
['__add__',
'__class__',
'__contains__',
'__delattr__',
'__delitem__',
'__delslice__',
'__doc__',
'__eq__',
'__ge__',
'__getattribute__',
'__getitem__',
'__getslice__',
'__gt__',
'__hash__',
'__iadd__',
'__imul__',
'__init__',
'__iter__',
'__le__',
'__len__',
'__lt__',
'__mul__',
'__ne__',
'__new__',
'__reduce__',
'__reduce_ex__',
'__repr__',
'__reversed__',
'__rmul__',
'__setattr__',
'__setitem__',
'__setslice__',
'__str__',
'append',
'count',
'extend',
'index',
'insert',
'pop',
'remove',
'reverse',
'sort']
The new introspection API gives more information than the old one: in
addition to the regular methods, it also shows the methods that are
normally invoked through special notations, e.g. __iadd__ (+=), __len__
(len), __ne__ (!=). You can invoke any method from this list directly:
>>> a = ['tic', 'tac']
>>> list.__len__(a) # same as len(a)
2
>>> a.__len__() # ditto
2
>>> list.append(a, 'toe') # same as a.append('toe')
>>> a
['tic', 'tac', 'toe']
>>>
This is just like it is for user-defined classes.
"""
test_4 = """
Static methods and class methods
The new introspection API makes it possible to add static methods and class
methods. Static methods are easy to describe: they behave pretty much like
static methods in C++ or Java. Here's an example:
>>> class C:
...
2005-01-15 20:25:31 -04:00
... @staticmethod
... def foo(x, y):
... print "staticmethod", x, y
>>> C.foo(1, 2)
staticmethod 1 2
>>> c = C()
>>> c.foo(1, 2)
staticmethod 1 2
Class methods use a similar pattern to declare methods that receive an
implicit first argument that is the *class* for which they are invoked.
>>> class C:
2005-01-15 20:25:31 -04:00
... @classmethod
... def foo(cls, y):
... print "classmethod", cls, y
>>> C.foo(1)
classmethod <class 'test.test_descrtut.C'> 1
>>> c = C()
>>> c.foo(1)
classmethod <class 'test.test_descrtut.C'> 1
>>> class D(C):
... pass
>>> D.foo(1)
classmethod <class 'test.test_descrtut.D'> 1
>>> d = D()
>>> d.foo(1)
classmethod <class 'test.test_descrtut.D'> 1
This prints "classmethod __main__.D 1" both times; in other words, the
class passed as the first argument of foo() is the class involved in the
call, not the class involved in the definition of foo().
But notice this:
>>> class E(C):
2005-01-15 20:25:31 -04:00
... @classmethod
... def foo(cls, y): # override C.foo
... print "E.foo() called"
... C.foo(y)
>>> E.foo(1)
E.foo() called
classmethod <class 'test.test_descrtut.C'> 1
>>> e = E()
>>> e.foo(1)
E.foo() called
classmethod <class 'test.test_descrtut.C'> 1
In this example, the call to C.foo() from E.foo() will see class C as its
first argument, not class E. This is to be expected, since the call
specifies the class C. But it stresses the difference between these class
methods and methods defined in metaclasses (where an upcall to a metamethod
would pass the target class as an explicit first argument).
"""
test_5 = """
Attributes defined by get/set methods
2001-09-06 18:56:42 -03:00
>>> class property(object):
...
... def __init__(self, get, set=None):
... self.__get = get
... self.__set = set
...
... def __get__(self, inst, type=None):
... return self.__get(inst)
...
... def __set__(self, inst, value):
... if self.__set is None:
... raise AttributeError, "this attribute is read-only"
... return self.__set(inst, value)
Now let's define a class with an attribute x defined by a pair of methods,
getx() and and setx():
>>> class C(object):
...
... def __init__(self):
... self.__x = 0
...
... def getx(self):
... return self.__x
...
... def setx(self, x):
... if x < 0: x = 0
... self.__x = x
...
2001-09-06 18:56:42 -03:00
... x = property(getx, setx)
Here's a small demonstration:
>>> a = C()
>>> a.x = 10
>>> print a.x
10
>>> a.x = -10
>>> print a.x
0
>>>
2001-09-06 18:56:42 -03:00
Hmm -- property is builtin now, so let's try it that way too.
2001-09-06 18:56:42 -03:00
>>> del property # unmask the builtin
>>> property
<type 'property'>
>>> class C(object):
... def __init__(self):
... self.__x = 0
... def getx(self):
... return self.__x
... def setx(self, x):
... if x < 0: x = 0
... self.__x = x
2001-09-06 18:56:42 -03:00
... x = property(getx, setx)
>>> a = C()
>>> a.x = 10
>>> print a.x
10
>>> a.x = -10
>>> print a.x
0
>>>
"""
test_6 = """
Method resolution order
This example is implicit in the writeup.
>>> class A: # implicit new-style class
... def save(self):
... print "called A.save()"
>>> class B(A):
... pass
>>> class C(A):
... def save(self):
... print "called C.save()"
>>> class D(B, C):
... pass
>>> D().save()
called C.save()
>>> class A(object): # explicit new-style class
... def save(self):
... print "called A.save()"
>>> class B(A):
... pass
>>> class C(A):
... def save(self):
... print "called C.save()"
>>> class D(B, C):
... pass
>>> D().save()
called C.save()
"""
class A(object):
def m(self):
return "A"
class B(A):
def m(self):
return "B" + super(B, self).m()
class C(A):
def m(self):
return "C" + super(C, self).m()
class D(C, B):
def m(self):
return "D" + super(D, self).m()
test_7 = """
Cooperative methods and "super"
>>> print D().m() # "DCBA"
DCBA
"""
test_8 = """
Backwards incompatibilities
>>> class A:
... def foo(self):
... print "called A.foo()"
>>> class B(A):
... pass
>>> class C(A):
... def foo(self):
... B.foo(self)
>>> C().foo()
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
TypeError: unbound method foo() must be called with B instance as first argument (got C instance instead)
>>> class C(A):
... def foo(self):
... A.foo(self)
>>> C().foo()
called A.foo()
"""
__test__ = {"tut1": test_1,
"tut2": test_2,
"tut3": test_3,
"tut4": test_4,
"tut5": test_5,
"tut6": test_6,
"tut7": test_7,
"tut8": test_8}
# Magic test name that regrtest.py invokes *after* importing this module.
# This worms around a bootstrap problem.
# Note that doctest and regrtest both look in sys.argv for a "-v" argument,
# so this works as expected in both ways of running regrtest.
def test_main(verbose=None):
# Obscure: import this module as test.test_descrtut instead of as
# plain test_descrtut because the name of this module works its way
# into the doctest examples, and unless the full test.test_descrtut
# business is used the name can change depending on how the test is
# invoked.
from test import test_support, test_descrtut
test_support.run_doctest(test_descrtut, verbose)
# This part isn't needed for regrtest, but for running the test directly.
if __name__ == "__main__":
test_main(1)