Reputation: 2038
I want to add some attributes to the built-in list
type, so I wrote this:
class MyList(list):
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
obj = super(MyList, cls).__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
obj.append('FirstMen')
return obj
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
self.name = 'Westeros'
def king(self):
print 'IronThrone'
if __name__ == '__main__':
my_list = MyList([1, 2, 3, 4])
print my_list
but my_list
contains only the element 'FirstMen'
. Why my __new__
doesn't work here? And how should I inherit from a built-in type like list
? Is it the same for the immutable types like str
?
Upvotes: 23
Views: 33782
Reputation: 17920
First of all, are you doing this as an exercise to understand __new__
? If not, there is almost certainly a better way to do what you're trying to do. Could you explain what you'd like to achieve here?
That said, here's what's happening in your example:
MyList([1,2,3,4])
MyList.__new__(MyList,[1,2,3,4])
list.__new__(MyList,[1,2,3,4])
This returns a new instance of MyList
, with no elements. list.__new__
does not populate the list. It leaves that to list.__init__
, which is never called.__new__
method appends 'FirstMen'
to the empty MyList
instance.__new__
method returns the instance of MyList
.MyList.__init__([1,2,3,4])
is invoked.name
attribute to 'Westeros'
.my_list
and printed.See here for an explanation of __new__
: http://docs.python.org/reference/datamodel.html#basic-customization
Upvotes: 11
Reputation: 601669
The list
type usually does the actual initialisation of the list inside its __init__()
method, as it is the convention for mutable types. You only need to overwrite __new__()
when subtyping immutable types. While you can overwrite __new__()
when subclassing list, there is not much point in doing so for your use case. It's easier to just overwrite __init__()
:
class MyList(list):
def __init__(self, *args):
list.__init__(self, *args)
self.append('FirstMen')
self.name = 'Westeros'
Also note that I recommend against using super()
in this case. You want to call list.__init__()
here, and not possibly anything else.
Upvotes: 39