What could generate the following behavior ?
>>> print str(msg)
my message
>>> print unicode(msg)
my message
But:
>>> print '%s' % msg
another message
More info:
msg
object is inherited from unicode
.__str__
/__unicode__
/__repr__
methods were overridden to return the string 'my message'
.msg
object was initialised with the string 'another message'
.msg
was not changed between the testsI would like an solution that matches this doctest, with minimal fuss (especially around the actual inheritance):
>>> print '%s' % msg
my message
Thanks for all suggestions.
I don't feel this will help more, but for curious readers (and adventurous pythonist), here's the implementation of the object:
class Message(zope.i18nmessageid.Message):
def __repr__(self):
return repr(zope.i18n.interpolate(self.default, self.mapping))
def __str__(self):
return zope.i18n.interpolate(self.default, self.mapping)
def __unicode__(self):
return zope.i18n.interpolate(self.default, self.mapping)
This is how we create the object msg:
>>> msg = Message('another message', 'mydomain', default='my message')
Zope packages version and code used are:
EDIT INFO:
Update 2: Please find the original answer, including a simple example of a class exhibiting the behaviour described by the OP, below the horizontal bar. As for what I was able to surmise in the course of my inquiry into Python's sources (v. 2.6.4):
The file Include/unicodeobject.h
contains the following to lines (nos. 436-7 in my (somewhat old) checkout):
#define PyUnicode_AS_UNICODE(op) \
(((PyUnicodeObject *)(op))->str)
This is used all over the place in the formatting code, which, as far as I can tell, means that during string formatting, any object which inherits from unicode
will be reached into so that its unicode string buffer may be used directly, without calling any Python methods. Which is good as far as performance is concerned, I'm sure (and very much in line with Juergen's conjecture in a comment on this answer).
For the OP's question, this probably means that making things work the way the OP would like them to may only be possible if something like Anurag Uniyal's wrapper class idea is acceptable for this particular use case. If it isn't, the only thing which comes to my mind now is to wrap objects of this class in str
/ unicode
wherever their being interpolated into a string... ugh. (I sincerely hope I'm just missing a cleaner solution which someone will point out in a minute!)
(Update: This was posted about a minute before the OP included the code of his class, but I'm leaving it here anyway (1) for the conjecture / initial attempt at an explanation below the code, (2) for a simple example of how to produce this behaviour (Anurag Uniyal has since provided another one calling unicode
's constructor directly, as opposed to via super
), (3) in hope of later being able to edit in something to help the OP in obtaining the desired behaviour.)
Here's an example of a class which actually works like what the OP describes (Python 2.6.4, it does produce a deprecation warning -- /usr/bin/ipython:3: DeprecationWarning: object.__init__() takes no parameters
):
class Foo(unicode):
def __init__(self, msg):
super(unicode, self).__init__(msg)
def __str__(self): return 'str msg'
def __repr__(self): return 'repr msg'
def __unicode__(self): return u'unicode msg'
A couple of interactions in IPython:
In [12]: print(Foo("asdf"))
asdf
In [13]: str(Foo("asdf"))
Out[13]: 'str msg'
In [14]: print str(Foo("asdf"))
-------> print(str(Foo("asdf")))
str msg
In [15]: print(str(Foo("asdf")))
str msg
In [16]: print('%s' % Foo("asdf"))
asdf
Apparently string interpolation treats this object as an instance of unicode
(directly calling the unicode
implementation of __str__
), whereas the other functions treat it as an instance of Foo
. How this happens internally and why it works like this and whether it's a bug or a feature, I really don't know.
As for how to fix the OP's object... Well, how would I know without seeing its code??? Give me the code and I promise to think about it! Ok, I'm thinking about it... No ideas so far.