Should __init__() call the parent class's __init_

113

I'm used that in Objective-C I've got this construct:

- (void)init {

    if (self = [super init]) {

        // init class

    }

    return self;

}

Should Python also call the parent class's implementation for __init__?

class NewClass(SomeOtherClass):

    def __init__(self):

        SomeOtherClass.__init__(self)

        # init class

Is this also true/false for __new__() and __del__()?

Edit: There's a very similar question: Inheritance and Overriding __init__ in Python

edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

Community♦

asked Sep 6 '09 at 14:04

Georg Schölly

99.3k42184245

you've changed your code significantly. I can understand that original object was a typo. But now you don't even have super title of your question refers to.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

I just thought that super is used as a name for the parent class. I didn't think anyone would think of the function. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:27

A why not automatic super call question: stackoverflow.com/questions/3782827/…

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功
Jul 6 '15 at 8:59

add a comment |

113

I'm used that in Objective-C I've got this construct:

- (void)init {

    if (self = [super init]) {

        // init class

    }

    return self;

}

Should Python also call the parent class's implementation for __init__?

class NewClass(SomeOtherClass):

    def __init__(self):

        SomeOtherClass.__init__(self)

        # init class

Is this also true/false for __new__() and __del__()?

Edit: There's a very similar question: Inheritance and Overriding __init__ in Python

edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

Community♦

asked Sep 6 '09 at 14:04

Georg Schölly

99.3k42184245

you've changed your code significantly. I can understand that original object was a typo. But now you don't even have super title of your question refers to.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

I just thought that super is used as a name for the parent class. I didn't think anyone would think of the function. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:27

A why not automatic super call question: stackoverflow.com/questions/3782827/…

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功
Jul 6 '15 at 8:59

add a comment |

113

I'm used that in Objective-C I've got this construct:

- (void)init {

    if (self = [super init]) {

        // init class

    }

    return self;

}

Should Python also call the parent class's implementation for __init__?

class NewClass(SomeOtherClass):

    def __init__(self):

        SomeOtherClass.__init__(self)

        # init class

Is this also true/false for __new__() and __del__()?

Edit: There's a very similar question: Inheritance and Overriding __init__ in Python

edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

Community♦

asked Sep 6 '09 at 14:04

Georg Schölly

99.3k42184245

I'm used that in Objective-C I've got this construct:

- (void)init {

    if (self = [super init]) {

        // init class

    }

    return self;

}

Should Python also call the parent class's implementation for __init__?

class NewClass(SomeOtherClass):

    def __init__(self):

        SomeOtherClass.__init__(self)

        # init class

Is this also true/false for __new__() and __del__()?

Edit: There's a very similar question: Inheritance and Overriding __init__ in Python

python

edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

Community♦

asked Sep 6 '09 at 14:04

Georg Schölly

99.3k42184245

edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

Community♦

asked Sep 6 '09 at 14:04

Georg Schölly

99.3k42184245

edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

Community♦

edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

Community♦

edited May 23 '17 at 12:02

Community♦

asked Sep 6 '09 at 14:04

Georg Schölly

99.3k42184245

asked Sep 6 '09 at 14:04

Georg Schölly

99.3k42184245

asked Sep 6 '09 at 14:04

Georg Schölly

99.3k42184245

you've changed your code significantly. I can understand that original object was a typo. But now you don't even have super title of your question refers to.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

I just thought that super is used as a name for the parent class. I didn't think anyone would think of the function. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:27

A why not automatic super call question: stackoverflow.com/questions/3782827/…

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功
Jul 6 '15 at 8:59

add a comment |

you've changed your code significantly. I can understand that original object was a typo. But now you don't even have super title of your question refers to.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

I just thought that super is used as a name for the parent class. I didn't think anyone would think of the function. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:27

A why not automatic super call question: stackoverflow.com/questions/3782827/…

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功
Jul 6 '15 at 8:59

you've changed your code significantly. I can understand that original object was a typo. But now you don't even have super title of your question refers to.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

I just thought that super is used as a name for the parent class. I didn't think anyone would think of the function. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:27

A why not automatic super call question: stackoverflow.com/questions/3782827/…

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功
Jul 6 '15 at 8:59

add a comment |

6 Answers
6

active

oldest

votes

In Python, calling the super-class' __init__ is optional. If you call it, it is then also optional whether to use the super identifier, or whether to explicitly name the super class:

object.__init__(self)

In case of object, calling the super method is not strictly necessary, since the super method is empty. Same for __del__.

On the other hand, for __new__, you should indeed call the super method, and use its return as the newly-created object - unless you explicitly want to return something different.

edited Jan 3 at 0:11

Nick Rempel

2,26421629

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

Martin v. Löwis

98.4k14169215

So there's no convention to just call super's implementation?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:22

5

In old-style classes, you could only call the super init if the super class actually had an init defined (which it often doesn't). Therefore, people typically think about calling super method, rather than doing it out of principle.

– Martin v. Löwis
Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

1

If the syntax in python was as simple as [super init], it would be more common. Just a speculative thought; the super construct in Python 2.x is a bit awkward to me.

– u0b34a0f6ae
Sep 6 '09 at 20:34

Here seems to be an interesting (and possibly contradicting) example: bytes.com/topic/python/answers/…init

– mlvljr
Jun 7 '11 at 12:16

"optional" in that you don't have to call it, but if you don't call it, it's not going to get called automatically.

– McKay
Dec 19 '17 at 23:35

add a comment |

126

If you need something from super's __init__ to be done in addition to what is being done in the current class's __init__, you must call it yourself, since that will not happen automatically. But if you don't need anything from super's __init__, no need to call it. Example:

>>> class C(object):

    def __init__(self):

        self.b = 1





>>> class D(C):

    def __init__(self):

        super().__init__() # in Python 2 use super(D, self).__init__()

        self.a = 1





>>> class E(C):

    def __init__(self):

        self.a = 1





>>> d = D()

>>> d.a

1

>>> d.b  # This works because of the call to super's init

1

>>> e = E()

>>> e.a

1

>>> e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File "<pyshell#70>", line 1, in <module>

    e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

AttributeError: 'E' object has no attribute 'b'

__del__ is the same way, (but be wary of relying on __del__ for finalization - consider doing it via the with statement instead).

I rarely use __new__. I do all the initialization in __init__.

edited Sep 24 '14 at 1:04

osa

4,5913443

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:51

Anon

8,36031818

3

The definition of class D(C) must be corrected like that super(D,self).__init__()

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 19:15

11

super().__init__() only works in Python 3. In Python 2 you need super(D, self).__init__()

– Jacinda
Jun 4 '13 at 23:48

add a comment |

In Anon's answer:
"If you need something from super's __init__ to be done in addition to what is being done in the current class's __init__ , you must call it yourself, since that will not happen automatically"

It's incredible: he is wording exactly the contrary of the principle of inheritance.

It is not that "something from super's __init__ (...) will not happen automatically" , it is that it WOULD happen automatically, but it doesn't happen because the base-class' __init__ is overriden by the definition of the derived-clas __init__

So then, WHY defining a derived_class' __init__ , since it overrides what is aimed at when someone resorts to inheritance ??

It's because one needs to define something that is NOT done in the base-class' __init__ , and the only possibility to obtain that is to put its execution in a derived-class' __init__ function.

In other words, one needs something in base-class' __init__ in addition to what would be automatically done in the base-classe' __init__ if this latter wasn't overriden.

NOT the contrary.

Then, the problem is that the desired instructions present in the base-class' __init__ are no more activated at the moment of instantiation. In order to offset this inactivation, something special is required: calling explicitly the base-class' __init__ , in order to KEEP , NOT TO ADD, the initialization performed by the base-class' __init__ .
That's exactly what is said in the official doc:

An overriding method in a derived class may in fact want to extend
rather than simply replace the base class method of the same name.
There is a simple way to call the base class method directly: just
call BaseClassName.methodname(self, arguments).
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/classes.html#inheritance

That's all the story:

when the aim is to KEEP the initialization performed by the base-class, that is pure inheritance, nothing special is needed, one must just avoid to define an __init__ function in the derived class

when the aim is to REPLACE the initialization performed by the base-class, __init__ must be defined in the derived-class

when the aim is to ADD processes to the initialization performed by the base-class, a derived-class' __init__ must be defined , comprising an explicit call to the base-class __init__

What I feel astonishing in the post of Anon is not only that he expresses the contrary of the inheritance theory, but that there have been 5 guys passing by that upvoted without turning a hair, and moreover there have been nobody to react in 2 years in a thread whose interesting subject must be read relatively often.

edited Jan 27 '18 at 1:33

Bruce

33928

answered Aug 14 '11 at 20:31

eyquem

20.2k42939

1

I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted. I'm afraid that I won't have a lot of explanation about the reasons why. It's easier to downvote than to analyze a text that appears incomprehensible. I had a long time trying to understand the Anon's post before I finally realized that it was speciously written and not very much authoritative. Maybe it can be interpreted as approximately right for someone who knows about the inheritance; but I find it confusioning when read by someone having unsteady notions about inheritance, a subject not as clear as rock water in general

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 21:50

2

"I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted..." Main issue is that you're a little late to the party, and most people may not read beyond the first few answers. Great explanation by the way +1

– Gerrat
Apr 6 '14 at 18:55

Great answer this is.

– Trilarion
May 20 '14 at 14:03

2

You missed the significant words "in addition" in the sentence you quoted from Aaron. Aaron's statement is completely correct, and matches what you end up saying.

– GreenAsJade
Jun 12 '14 at 6:06

1

This is the first explanation that made python's design choice make sense.

– Joseph Garvin
Jan 2 '15 at 22:59

|
show 1 more comment

Edit: (after the code change)

There is no way for us to tell you whether you need or not to call your parent's __init__ (or any other function). Inheritance obviously would work without such call. It all depends on the logic of your code: for example, if all your __init__ is done in parent class, you can just skip child-class __init__ altogether.

consider the following example:

>>> class A:

    def __init__(self, val):

        self.a = val





>>> class B(A):

    pass



>>> class C(A):

    def __init__(self, val):

        A.__init__(self, val)

        self.a += val





>>> A(4).a

4

>>> B(5).a

5

>>> C(6).a

12

edited Sep 6 '09 at 14:29

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:11

SilentGhost

199k47270266

I removed the super call from my example, is I wanted to know if one should call the parent class's implementation of init or not.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:14

you might want to edit the title then. but my answer still stands.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:19

add a comment |

There's no hard and fast rule. The documentation for a class should indicate whether subclasses should call the superclass method. Sometimes you want to completely replace superclass behaviour, and at other times augment it - i.e. call your own code before and/or after a superclass call.

Update: The same basic logic applies to any method call. Constructors sometimes need special consideration (as they often set up state which determines behaviour) and destructors because they parallel constructors (e.g. in the allocation of resources, e.g. database connections). But the same might apply, say, to the render() method of a widget.

Further update: What's the OPP? Do you mean OOP? No - a subclass often needs to know something about the design of the superclass. Not the internal implementation details - but the basic contract that the superclass has with its clients (using classes). This does not violate OOP principles in any way. That's why protected is a valid concept in OOP in general (though not, of course, in Python).

edited Sep 6 '09 at 19:23

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:13

Vinay Sajip

71k8130146

What about new and del?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:16

You said that sometimes one would want to call own code before the superclass call. To do this, one needs knowledge of the parent class's implementation, which would violate the OPP.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 16:34

add a comment |

IMO, you should call it. If your superclass is object, you should not, but in other cases I think it is exceptional not to call it. As already answered by others, it is very convenient if your class doesn't even have to override __init__ itself, for example when it has no (additional) internal state to initialize.

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

u0b34a0f6ae

33.1k117796

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f1385759%2fshould-init-call-the-parent-classs-init%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

6 Answers
6

active

oldest

votes

6 Answers
6

active

oldest

votes

In Python, calling the super-class' __init__ is optional. If you call it, it is then also optional whether to use the super identifier, or whether to explicitly name the super class:

object.__init__(self)

In case of object, calling the super method is not strictly necessary, since the super method is empty. Same for __del__.

On the other hand, for __new__, you should indeed call the super method, and use its return as the newly-created object - unless you explicitly want to return something different.

edited Jan 3 at 0:11

Nick Rempel

2,26421629

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

Martin v. Löwis

98.4k14169215

So there's no convention to just call super's implementation?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:22

5

In old-style classes, you could only call the super init if the super class actually had an init defined (which it often doesn't). Therefore, people typically think about calling super method, rather than doing it out of principle.

– Martin v. Löwis
Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

1

If the syntax in python was as simple as [super init], it would be more common. Just a speculative thought; the super construct in Python 2.x is a bit awkward to me.

– u0b34a0f6ae
Sep 6 '09 at 20:34

Here seems to be an interesting (and possibly contradicting) example: bytes.com/topic/python/answers/…init

– mlvljr
Jun 7 '11 at 12:16

"optional" in that you don't have to call it, but if you don't call it, it's not going to get called automatically.

– McKay
Dec 19 '17 at 23:35

add a comment |

In Python, calling the super-class' __init__ is optional. If you call it, it is then also optional whether to use the super identifier, or whether to explicitly name the super class:

object.__init__(self)

In case of object, calling the super method is not strictly necessary, since the super method is empty. Same for __del__.

On the other hand, for __new__, you should indeed call the super method, and use its return as the newly-created object - unless you explicitly want to return something different.

edited Jan 3 at 0:11

Nick Rempel

2,26421629

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

Martin v. Löwis

98.4k14169215

So there's no convention to just call super's implementation?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:22

5

In old-style classes, you could only call the super init if the super class actually had an init defined (which it often doesn't). Therefore, people typically think about calling super method, rather than doing it out of principle.

– Martin v. Löwis
Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

1

If the syntax in python was as simple as [super init], it would be more common. Just a speculative thought; the super construct in Python 2.x is a bit awkward to me.

– u0b34a0f6ae
Sep 6 '09 at 20:34

Here seems to be an interesting (and possibly contradicting) example: bytes.com/topic/python/answers/…init

– mlvljr
Jun 7 '11 at 12:16

"optional" in that you don't have to call it, but if you don't call it, it's not going to get called automatically.

– McKay
Dec 19 '17 at 23:35

add a comment |

In Python, calling the super-class' __init__ is optional. If you call it, it is then also optional whether to use the super identifier, or whether to explicitly name the super class:

object.__init__(self)

In case of object, calling the super method is not strictly necessary, since the super method is empty. Same for __del__.

On the other hand, for __new__, you should indeed call the super method, and use its return as the newly-created object - unless you explicitly want to return something different.

edited Jan 3 at 0:11

Nick Rempel

2,26421629

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

Martin v. Löwis

98.4k14169215

In Python, calling the super-class' __init__ is optional. If you call it, it is then also optional whether to use the super identifier, or whether to explicitly name the super class:

object.__init__(self)

In case of object, calling the super method is not strictly necessary, since the super method is empty. Same for __del__.

On the other hand, for __new__, you should indeed call the super method, and use its return as the newly-created object - unless you explicitly want to return something different.

edited Jan 3 at 0:11

Nick Rempel

2,26421629

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

Martin v. Löwis

98.4k14169215

edited Jan 3 at 0:11

Nick Rempel

2,26421629

edited Jan 3 at 0:11

Nick Rempel

2,26421629

edited Jan 3 at 0:11

Nick Rempel

2,26421629

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

Martin v. Löwis

98.4k14169215

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

Martin v. Löwis

98.4k14169215

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:18

Martin v. Löwis

98.4k14169215

So there's no convention to just call super's implementation?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:22

5

In old-style classes, you could only call the super init if the super class actually had an init defined (which it often doesn't). Therefore, people typically think about calling super method, rather than doing it out of principle.

– Martin v. Löwis
Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

1

If the syntax in python was as simple as [super init], it would be more common. Just a speculative thought; the super construct in Python 2.x is a bit awkward to me.

– u0b34a0f6ae
Sep 6 '09 at 20:34

Here seems to be an interesting (and possibly contradicting) example: bytes.com/topic/python/answers/…init

– mlvljr
Jun 7 '11 at 12:16

"optional" in that you don't have to call it, but if you don't call it, it's not going to get called automatically.

– McKay
Dec 19 '17 at 23:35

add a comment |

So there's no convention to just call super's implementation?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:22

5

In old-style classes, you could only call the super init if the super class actually had an init defined (which it often doesn't). Therefore, people typically think about calling super method, rather than doing it out of principle.

– Martin v. Löwis
Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

1

If the syntax in python was as simple as [super init], it would be more common. Just a speculative thought; the super construct in Python 2.x is a bit awkward to me.

– u0b34a0f6ae
Sep 6 '09 at 20:34

Here seems to be an interesting (and possibly contradicting) example: bytes.com/topic/python/answers/…init

– mlvljr
Jun 7 '11 at 12:16

"optional" in that you don't have to call it, but if you don't call it, it's not going to get called automatically.

– McKay
Dec 19 '17 at 23:35

So there's no convention to just call super's implementation?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:22

In old-style classes, you could only call the super init if the super class actually had an init defined (which it often doesn't). Therefore, people typically think about calling super method, rather than doing it out of principle.

– Martin v. Löwis
Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

If the syntax in python was as simple as [super init], it would be more common. Just a speculative thought; the super construct in Python 2.x is a bit awkward to me.

– u0b34a0f6ae
Sep 6 '09 at 20:34

Here seems to be an interesting (and possibly contradicting) example: bytes.com/topic/python/answers/…init

– mlvljr
Jun 7 '11 at 12:16

"optional" in that you don't have to call it, but if you don't call it, it's not going to get called automatically.

– McKay
Dec 19 '17 at 23:35

add a comment |

126

>>> class C(object):

    def __init__(self):

        self.b = 1





>>> class D(C):

    def __init__(self):

        super().__init__() # in Python 2 use super(D, self).__init__()

        self.a = 1





>>> class E(C):

    def __init__(self):

        self.a = 1





>>> d = D()

>>> d.a

1

>>> d.b  # This works because of the call to super's init

1

>>> e = E()

>>> e.a

1

>>> e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File "<pyshell#70>", line 1, in <module>

    e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

AttributeError: 'E' object has no attribute 'b'

__del__ is the same way, (but be wary of relying on __del__ for finalization - consider doing it via the with statement instead).

I rarely use __new__. I do all the initialization in __init__.

edited Sep 24 '14 at 1:04

osa

4,5913443

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:51

Anon

8,36031818

3

The definition of class D(C) must be corrected like that super(D,self).__init__()

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 19:15

11

super().__init__() only works in Python 3. In Python 2 you need super(D, self).__init__()

– Jacinda
Jun 4 '13 at 23:48

add a comment |

126

>>> class C(object):

    def __init__(self):

        self.b = 1





>>> class D(C):

    def __init__(self):

        super().__init__() # in Python 2 use super(D, self).__init__()

        self.a = 1





>>> class E(C):

    def __init__(self):

        self.a = 1





>>> d = D()

>>> d.a

1

>>> d.b  # This works because of the call to super's init

1

>>> e = E()

>>> e.a

1

>>> e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File "<pyshell#70>", line 1, in <module>

    e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

AttributeError: 'E' object has no attribute 'b'

__del__ is the same way, (but be wary of relying on __del__ for finalization - consider doing it via the with statement instead).

I rarely use __new__. I do all the initialization in __init__.

edited Sep 24 '14 at 1:04

osa

4,5913443

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:51

Anon

8,36031818

3

The definition of class D(C) must be corrected like that super(D,self).__init__()

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 19:15

11

super().__init__() only works in Python 3. In Python 2 you need super(D, self).__init__()

– Jacinda
Jun 4 '13 at 23:48

add a comment |

126

>>> class C(object):

    def __init__(self):

        self.b = 1





>>> class D(C):

    def __init__(self):

        super().__init__() # in Python 2 use super(D, self).__init__()

        self.a = 1





>>> class E(C):

    def __init__(self):

        self.a = 1





>>> d = D()

>>> d.a

1

>>> d.b  # This works because of the call to super's init

1

>>> e = E()

>>> e.a

1

>>> e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File "<pyshell#70>", line 1, in <module>

    e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

AttributeError: 'E' object has no attribute 'b'

__del__ is the same way, (but be wary of relying on __del__ for finalization - consider doing it via the with statement instead).

I rarely use __new__. I do all the initialization in __init__.

edited Sep 24 '14 at 1:04

osa

4,5913443

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:51

Anon

8,36031818

>>> class C(object):

    def __init__(self):

        self.b = 1





>>> class D(C):

    def __init__(self):

        super().__init__() # in Python 2 use super(D, self).__init__()

        self.a = 1





>>> class E(C):

    def __init__(self):

        self.a = 1





>>> d = D()

>>> d.a

1

>>> d.b  # This works because of the call to super's init

1

>>> e = E()

>>> e.a

1

>>> e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File "<pyshell#70>", line 1, in <module>

    e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...

AttributeError: 'E' object has no attribute 'b'

__del__ is the same way, (but be wary of relying on __del__ for finalization - consider doing it via the with statement instead).

I rarely use __new__. I do all the initialization in __init__.

edited Sep 24 '14 at 1:04

osa

4,5913443

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:51

Anon

8,36031818

edited Sep 24 '14 at 1:04

osa

4,5913443

edited Sep 24 '14 at 1:04

osa

4,5913443

edited Sep 24 '14 at 1:04

osa

4,5913443

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:51

Anon

8,36031818

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:51

Anon

8,36031818

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:51

Anon

8,36031818

3

The definition of class D(C) must be corrected like that super(D,self).__init__()

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 19:15

11

super().__init__() only works in Python 3. In Python 2 you need super(D, self).__init__()

– Jacinda
Jun 4 '13 at 23:48

add a comment |

3

The definition of class D(C) must be corrected like that super(D,self).__init__()

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 19:15

11

super().__init__() only works in Python 3. In Python 2 you need super(D, self).__init__()

– Jacinda
Jun 4 '13 at 23:48

The definition of class D(C) must be corrected like that super(D,self).__init__()

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 19:15

super().__init__() only works in Python 3. In Python 2 you need super(D, self).__init__()

– Jacinda
Jun 4 '13 at 23:48

add a comment |

It's incredible: he is wording exactly the contrary of the principle of inheritance.

So then, WHY defining a derived_class' __init__ , since it overrides what is aimed at when someone resorts to inheritance ??

An overriding method in a derived class may in fact want to extend
rather than simply replace the base class method of the same name.
There is a simple way to call the base class method directly: just
call BaseClassName.methodname(self, arguments).
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/classes.html#inheritance

That's all the story:

when the aim is to KEEP the initialization performed by the base-class, that is pure inheritance, nothing special is needed, one must just avoid to define an __init__ function in the derived class

when the aim is to REPLACE the initialization performed by the base-class, __init__ must be defined in the derived-class

when the aim is to ADD processes to the initialization performed by the base-class, a derived-class' __init__ must be defined , comprising an explicit call to the base-class __init__

edited Jan 27 '18 at 1:33

Bruce

33928

answered Aug 14 '11 at 20:31

eyquem

20.2k42939

1

I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted. I'm afraid that I won't have a lot of explanation about the reasons why. It's easier to downvote than to analyze a text that appears incomprehensible. I had a long time trying to understand the Anon's post before I finally realized that it was speciously written and not very much authoritative. Maybe it can be interpreted as approximately right for someone who knows about the inheritance; but I find it confusioning when read by someone having unsteady notions about inheritance, a subject not as clear as rock water in general

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 21:50

2

"I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted..." Main issue is that you're a little late to the party, and most people may not read beyond the first few answers. Great explanation by the way +1

– Gerrat
Apr 6 '14 at 18:55

Great answer this is.

– Trilarion
May 20 '14 at 14:03

2

You missed the significant words "in addition" in the sentence you quoted from Aaron. Aaron's statement is completely correct, and matches what you end up saying.

– GreenAsJade
Jun 12 '14 at 6:06

1

This is the first explanation that made python's design choice make sense.

– Joseph Garvin
Jan 2 '15 at 22:59

|
show 1 more comment

It's incredible: he is wording exactly the contrary of the principle of inheritance.

So then, WHY defining a derived_class' __init__ , since it overrides what is aimed at when someone resorts to inheritance ??

An overriding method in a derived class may in fact want to extend
rather than simply replace the base class method of the same name.
There is a simple way to call the base class method directly: just
call BaseClassName.methodname(self, arguments).
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/classes.html#inheritance

That's all the story:

when the aim is to KEEP the initialization performed by the base-class, that is pure inheritance, nothing special is needed, one must just avoid to define an __init__ function in the derived class

when the aim is to REPLACE the initialization performed by the base-class, __init__ must be defined in the derived-class

when the aim is to ADD processes to the initialization performed by the base-class, a derived-class' __init__ must be defined , comprising an explicit call to the base-class __init__

edited Jan 27 '18 at 1:33

Bruce

33928

answered Aug 14 '11 at 20:31

eyquem

20.2k42939

1

I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted. I'm afraid that I won't have a lot of explanation about the reasons why. It's easier to downvote than to analyze a text that appears incomprehensible. I had a long time trying to understand the Anon's post before I finally realized that it was speciously written and not very much authoritative. Maybe it can be interpreted as approximately right for someone who knows about the inheritance; but I find it confusioning when read by someone having unsteady notions about inheritance, a subject not as clear as rock water in general

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 21:50

2

"I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted..." Main issue is that you're a little late to the party, and most people may not read beyond the first few answers. Great explanation by the way +1

– Gerrat
Apr 6 '14 at 18:55

Great answer this is.

– Trilarion
May 20 '14 at 14:03

2

You missed the significant words "in addition" in the sentence you quoted from Aaron. Aaron's statement is completely correct, and matches what you end up saying.

– GreenAsJade
Jun 12 '14 at 6:06

1

This is the first explanation that made python's design choice make sense.

– Joseph Garvin
Jan 2 '15 at 22:59

|
show 1 more comment

It's incredible: he is wording exactly the contrary of the principle of inheritance.

So then, WHY defining a derived_class' __init__ , since it overrides what is aimed at when someone resorts to inheritance ??

An overriding method in a derived class may in fact want to extend
rather than simply replace the base class method of the same name.
There is a simple way to call the base class method directly: just
call BaseClassName.methodname(self, arguments).
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/classes.html#inheritance

That's all the story:

when the aim is to KEEP the initialization performed by the base-class, that is pure inheritance, nothing special is needed, one must just avoid to define an __init__ function in the derived class

when the aim is to REPLACE the initialization performed by the base-class, __init__ must be defined in the derived-class

when the aim is to ADD processes to the initialization performed by the base-class, a derived-class' __init__ must be defined , comprising an explicit call to the base-class __init__

edited Jan 27 '18 at 1:33

Bruce

33928

answered Aug 14 '11 at 20:31

eyquem

20.2k42939

It's incredible: he is wording exactly the contrary of the principle of inheritance.

So then, WHY defining a derived_class' __init__ , since it overrides what is aimed at when someone resorts to inheritance ??

An overriding method in a derived class may in fact want to extend
rather than simply replace the base class method of the same name.
There is a simple way to call the base class method directly: just
call BaseClassName.methodname(self, arguments).
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/classes.html#inheritance

That's all the story:

when the aim is to KEEP the initialization performed by the base-class, that is pure inheritance, nothing special is needed, one must just avoid to define an __init__ function in the derived class

when the aim is to REPLACE the initialization performed by the base-class, __init__ must be defined in the derived-class

when the aim is to ADD processes to the initialization performed by the base-class, a derived-class' __init__ must be defined , comprising an explicit call to the base-class __init__

edited Jan 27 '18 at 1:33

Bruce

33928

answered Aug 14 '11 at 20:31

eyquem

20.2k42939

edited Jan 27 '18 at 1:33

Bruce

33928

edited Jan 27 '18 at 1:33

Bruce

33928

edited Jan 27 '18 at 1:33

Bruce

33928

answered Aug 14 '11 at 20:31

eyquem

20.2k42939

answered Aug 14 '11 at 20:31

eyquem

20.2k42939

answered Aug 14 '11 at 20:31

eyquem

20.2k42939

1

I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted. I'm afraid that I won't have a lot of explanation about the reasons why. It's easier to downvote than to analyze a text that appears incomprehensible. I had a long time trying to understand the Anon's post before I finally realized that it was speciously written and not very much authoritative. Maybe it can be interpreted as approximately right for someone who knows about the inheritance; but I find it confusioning when read by someone having unsteady notions about inheritance, a subject not as clear as rock water in general

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 21:50

2

"I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted..." Main issue is that you're a little late to the party, and most people may not read beyond the first few answers. Great explanation by the way +1

– Gerrat
Apr 6 '14 at 18:55

Great answer this is.

– Trilarion
May 20 '14 at 14:03

2

You missed the significant words "in addition" in the sentence you quoted from Aaron. Aaron's statement is completely correct, and matches what you end up saying.

– GreenAsJade
Jun 12 '14 at 6:06

1

This is the first explanation that made python's design choice make sense.

– Joseph Garvin
Jan 2 '15 at 22:59

|
show 1 more comment

1

I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted. I'm afraid that I won't have a lot of explanation about the reasons why. It's easier to downvote than to analyze a text that appears incomprehensible. I had a long time trying to understand the Anon's post before I finally realized that it was speciously written and not very much authoritative. Maybe it can be interpreted as approximately right for someone who knows about the inheritance; but I find it confusioning when read by someone having unsteady notions about inheritance, a subject not as clear as rock water in general

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 21:50

2

"I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted..." Main issue is that you're a little late to the party, and most people may not read beyond the first few answers. Great explanation by the way +1

– Gerrat
Apr 6 '14 at 18:55

Great answer this is.

– Trilarion
May 20 '14 at 14:03

2

You missed the significant words "in addition" in the sentence you quoted from Aaron. Aaron's statement is completely correct, and matches what you end up saying.

– GreenAsJade
Jun 12 '14 at 6:06

1

This is the first explanation that made python's design choice make sense.

– Joseph Garvin
Jan 2 '15 at 22:59

I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted. I'm afraid that I won't have a lot of explanation about the reasons why. It's easier to downvote than to analyze a text that appears incomprehensible. I had a long time trying to understand the Anon's post before I finally realized that it was speciously written and not very much authoritative. Maybe it can be interpreted as approximately right for someone who knows about the inheritance; but I find it confusioning when read by someone having unsteady notions about inheritance, a subject not as clear as rock water in general

– eyquem
Aug 14 '11 at 21:50

"I was sure that this post was going to be upvoted..." Main issue is that you're a little late to the party, and most people may not read beyond the first few answers. Great explanation by the way +1

– Gerrat
Apr 6 '14 at 18:55

Great answer this is.

– Trilarion
May 20 '14 at 14:03

You missed the significant words "in addition" in the sentence you quoted from Aaron. Aaron's statement is completely correct, and matches what you end up saying.

– GreenAsJade
Jun 12 '14 at 6:06

This is the first explanation that made python's design choice make sense.

– Joseph Garvin
Jan 2 '15 at 22:59

|
show 1 more comment

consider the following example:

>>> class A:

    def __init__(self, val):

        self.a = val





>>> class B(A):

    pass



>>> class C(A):

    def __init__(self, val):

        A.__init__(self, val)

        self.a += val





>>> A(4).a

4

>>> B(5).a

5

>>> C(6).a

12

edited Sep 6 '09 at 14:29

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:11

SilentGhost

199k47270266

I removed the super call from my example, is I wanted to know if one should call the parent class's implementation of init or not.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:14

you might want to edit the title then. but my answer still stands.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:19

add a comment |

consider the following example:

>>> class A:

    def __init__(self, val):

        self.a = val





>>> class B(A):

    pass



>>> class C(A):

    def __init__(self, val):

        A.__init__(self, val)

        self.a += val





>>> A(4).a

4

>>> B(5).a

5

>>> C(6).a

12

edited Sep 6 '09 at 14:29

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:11

SilentGhost

199k47270266

I removed the super call from my example, is I wanted to know if one should call the parent class's implementation of init or not.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:14

you might want to edit the title then. but my answer still stands.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:19

add a comment |

consider the following example:

>>> class A:

    def __init__(self, val):

        self.a = val





>>> class B(A):

    pass



>>> class C(A):

    def __init__(self, val):

        A.__init__(self, val)

        self.a += val





>>> A(4).a

4

>>> B(5).a

5

>>> C(6).a

12

edited Sep 6 '09 at 14:29

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:11

SilentGhost

199k47270266

consider the following example:

>>> class A:

    def __init__(self, val):

        self.a = val





>>> class B(A):

    pass



>>> class C(A):

    def __init__(self, val):

        A.__init__(self, val)

        self.a += val





>>> A(4).a

4

>>> B(5).a

5

>>> C(6).a

12

edited Sep 6 '09 at 14:29

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:11

SilentGhost

199k47270266

edited Sep 6 '09 at 14:29

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:11

SilentGhost

199k47270266

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:11

SilentGhost

199k47270266

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:11

SilentGhost

199k47270266

I removed the super call from my example, is I wanted to know if one should call the parent class's implementation of init or not.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:14

you might want to edit the title then. but my answer still stands.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:19

add a comment |

I removed the super call from my example, is I wanted to know if one should call the parent class's implementation of init or not.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:14

you might want to edit the title then. but my answer still stands.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:19

I removed the super call from my example, is I wanted to know if one should call the parent class's implementation of init or not.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:14

you might want to edit the title then. but my answer still stands.

– SilentGhost
Sep 6 '09 at 14:19

add a comment |

edited Sep 6 '09 at 19:23

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:13

Vinay Sajip

71k8130146

What about new and del?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:16

You said that sometimes one would want to call own code before the superclass call. To do this, one needs knowledge of the parent class's implementation, which would violate the OPP.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 16:34

add a comment |

edited Sep 6 '09 at 19:23

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:13

Vinay Sajip

71k8130146

What about new and del?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:16

You said that sometimes one would want to call own code before the superclass call. To do this, one needs knowledge of the parent class's implementation, which would violate the OPP.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 16:34

add a comment |

edited Sep 6 '09 at 19:23

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:13

Vinay Sajip

71k8130146

edited Sep 6 '09 at 19:23

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:13

Vinay Sajip

71k8130146

edited Sep 6 '09 at 19:23

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:13

Vinay Sajip

71k8130146

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:13

Vinay Sajip

71k8130146

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:13

Vinay Sajip

71k8130146

What about new and del?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:16

You said that sometimes one would want to call own code before the superclass call. To do this, one needs knowledge of the parent class's implementation, which would violate the OPP.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 16:34

add a comment |

What about new and del?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:16

You said that sometimes one would want to call own code before the superclass call. To do this, one needs knowledge of the parent class's implementation, which would violate the OPP.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 16:34

What about new and del?

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 14:16

You said that sometimes one would want to call own code before the superclass call. To do this, one needs knowledge of the parent class's implementation, which would violate the OPP.

– Georg Schölly
Sep 6 '09 at 16:34

add a comment |

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

u0b34a0f6ae

33.1k117796

add a comment |

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

u0b34a0f6ae

33.1k117796

add a comment |

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

u0b34a0f6ae

33.1k117796

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

u0b34a0f6ae

33.1k117796

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

u0b34a0f6ae

33.1k117796

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

u0b34a0f6ae

33.1k117796

answered Sep 6 '09 at 14:47

u0b34a0f6ae

33.1k117796

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

Search This Blog

Ufyukyu