Is there any reason to choose __new__ over __init__ when defining a metaclass?

问题

I've always set up metaclasses something like this:

class SomeMetaClass(type):
    def __new__(cls, name, bases, dict):
        #do stuff here

But I just came across a metaclass that was defined like this:

class SomeMetaClass(type):
    def __init__(self, name, bases, dict):
        #do stuff here

Is there any reason to prefer one over the other?

Update: Bear in mind that I'm asking about using __new__ and __init__ in a metaclass. I already understand the difference between them in another class. But in a metaclass, I can't use __new__ to implement caching because __new__ is only called upon class creation in a metaclass.

回答1:

If you want to alter the attributes dict before the class is created, or change the bases tuple, you have to use __new__. By the time __init__ sees the arguments, the class object already exists. Also, you have to use __new__ if you want to return something other than a newly created class of the type in question.

On the other hand, by the time __init__ runs, the class does exist. Thus, you can do things like give a reference to the just-created class to one of its member objects.

Edit: changed wording to make it more clear that by "object", I mean class-object.

回答2:

You can see the full writeup in the official docs, but basically, __new__ is called before the new object is created (for the purpose of creating it) and __init__ is called after the new object is created (for the purpose of initializing it).

Using __new__ allows tricks like object caching (always returning the same object for the same arguments rather than creating new ones) or producing objects of a different class than requested (sometimes used to return more-specific subclasses of the requested class). Generally, unless you're doing something pretty odd, __new__ is of limited utility. If you don't need to invoke such trickery, stick with __init__.

回答3:

You can implement caching. Person("Jack") always returns a new object in the second example while you can lookup an existing instance in the first example with __new__ (or not return anything if you want).

回答4:

As has been said, if you intend to alter something like the base classes or the attributes, you’ll have to do it in __new__. The same is true for the name of the class but there seems to be a peculiarity with it. When you change name, it is not propagated to __init__, even though, for example attr is.

So you’ll have:

class Meta(type):
    def __new__(cls, name, bases, attr):
        name = "A_class_named_" + name
        return type.__new__(cls, name, bases, attr)

    def __init__(cls, name, bases, attr):
        print "I am still called '" + name + "' in init"
        return super(Meta, cls).__init__(name, bases, attr)

class A(object):
    __metaclass__ = Meta

print "Now I'm", A.__name__

prints

I am still called 'A' in init
Now I'm A_class_named_A

This is important to know, if __init__ calls a super metaclass which does some additional magic. In that case, one has to change the name again before calling super.__init__.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1840421/is-there-any-reason-to-choose-new-over-init-when-defining-a-metaclass

标签

python

constructor

new-operator

metaclass

init