Can someone help me with this bug?

Discussion in 'Python' started by Duncan Smith, May 27, 2004.

  1. Duncan Smith

    Duncan Smith Guest

    I'm probably missing something that should be obvious, but can
    anyone tell me what's wrong with the following?

    class Item(object):
    def __init__(self, id, data): = id = data

    class KeyedSet(dict):
    def __init__(self, items=None):
    if items is not None:
    for item in items:
    self[] = item

    def __iter__(self):
    return self.itervalues()

    def __repr__(self):
    return '%s(%r)' % (self.__class__.__name__, self.keys())

    def __contains__(self, item):
    return self.has_key(

    def intersection(self, other):
    res = self.__class__()
    for item in self:
    if item in other:
    res[] = item
    return res

    def __and__(self, other):
    return self.intersection(other)

    def intersection_update(self, other):
    self &= other

    def __iand__(self, other):
    self = self.intersection(other)
    return self
    I can't figure out why 'aset' is unchanged? Thanks.

    Duncan Smith, May 27, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Duncan Smith

    Peter Otten Guest

    Your problem stripped down to the bare bones: __iand__() creates a new
    instance instead of modifying the current one.

    self = something

    doesn't copy something's data to self, it just rebinds self to something for
    the rest of the method.

    A minimal example of what went wrong:
    .... def __init__(self, value):
    .... self.value = value
    .... def __iand__(self, other):
    .... return A(self.value + other.value)
    .... def __repr__(self):
    .... return "value=%s" % self.value
    It looks like inplace modification, but isn't:
    (value=3, value=1)

    a is rebound to the newly created instance, which tricks you into believing
    it was modified. The backup reference b reveals the error.
    Here's the correction (I'm lazy, so I reuse the unaltered parts of A):
    .... def __iand__(self, other):
    .... self.value += other.value
    .... return self
    ....(value=3, value=3)

    Once you understand the basic principle, it should be no problem to apply it
    to your KeyedSet class. If in doubt, use the sets.Set implementation as a

    Peter Otten, May 27, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Duncan Smith

    Duncan Smith Guest

    Yep. This also explains why the other unit tests involving __iand__ passed,
    leaving me thinking it was OK. Cheers.

    Duncan Smith, May 28, 2004
  4. Duncan Smith

    Dan Bishop Guest

    Your __iand__ method doesn't work the way that you think it does.
    Remember, "self" is just another local variable name, so your function
    works as if you had done:

    def __iand__(self, other):
    x = self.intersection(other)
    return x

    which (incorrectly) has the same effect as __and__.
    Dan Bishop, May 28, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.