protocols, inheritance and polymorphism

Donn Cave donn at u.washington.edu
Tue Nov 23 20:15:37 CET 2004


In article <YWKod.137814$HA.44609 at attbi_s01>,
 Steven Bethard <steven.bethard at gmail.com> wrote:
...
> This is not to say that there are never any times when you want to use 
> isinstance.  Here's a good example from my code for a Bunch class[1]:
> 
> class Bunch(object):
>      ...
>      def update(self, *args, **kwds):
>          if len(args) == 1:
>              other, = args
>              if isinstance(other, self.__class__):
>                  other = other.__dict__
>              try:
>                  self.__dict__.update(other)
>              except TypeError:
>                  raise TypeError('cannot update Bunch with %s' %
>                                  type(other).__name__)
>          elif len(args) != 0:
>              raise TypeError('expected 1 argument, got %i' % len(args))
>          self.__dict__.update(kwds)
> 
> In the code here, we use isinstance to check on whether or not to use 
> the argument's __dict__. 
...

> The point here is that I'm using isinstance here because I *know* there 
> are objects out there that, unlike Bunch objects, may have 'attributes' 
> not stored in their __dict__, and I *know* they might get passed to 
> Bunch.update.  Since I can't appropriately support their use, I want the 
> user to be notified of this (with the TypeError).
> 
> Of course, I'm still making heavy use of the more general parametric 
> polymorphism because even if the object doesn't inherit from Bunch, I 
> still pass it to dict.update, which works with any type that supports 
> the mapping protocol (and a few other types besides).  So if, in the 
> future dict.update gains support for some new type, my code doesn't 
> artifically restrict the type of parameter that can be passed to my 
> function.
> 
> Hope this was helpful (or at least vaguely intelligible) ;)

I don't really see that isinstance() was necessary in principle
here.  Not that it makes any difference to me, but it looks like
you created this problem by defining these semantics in Bunch
but failing to assign any identifiable attribute - we could in
principle make another unrelated class "quack like a Bunch",
but we'd have no way to inform your update function of this.

   Donn Cave, donn at u.washington.edu



More information about the Python-list mailing list