Can you monkey patch methods on core types in Python?

Solution 1:

No, you cannot. In Python, all data (classes, methods, functions, etc) defined in C extension modules (including builtins) are immutable. This is because C modules are shared between multiple interpreters in the same process, so monkeypatching them would also affect unrelated interpreters in the same process. (Multiple interpreters in the same process are possible through the C API, and there has been some effort towards making them usable at Python level.)

However, classes defined in Python code may be monkeypatched because they are local to that interpreter.

Solution 2:

What exactly do you mean by Monkey Patch here? There are several slightly different definitions.

If you mean, "can you change a class's methods at runtime?", then the answer is emphatically yes:

class Foo:
  pass # dummy class

Foo.bar = lambda self: 42

x = Foo()
print x.bar()

If you mean, "can you change a class's methods at runtime and make all of the instances of that class change after-the-fact?" then the answer is yes as well. Just change the order slightly:

class Foo:
  pass # dummy class

x = Foo()

Foo.bar = lambda self: 42

print x.bar()

But you can't do this for certain built-in classes, like int or float. These classes' methods are implemented in C and there are certain abstractions sacrificed in order to make the implementation easier and more efficient.

I'm not really clear on why you would want to alter the behavior of the built-in numeric classes anyway. If you need to alter their behavior, subclass them!!

Solution 3:

def should_equal_def(self, value):
    if self != value:
        raise ValueError, "%r should equal %r" % (self, value)

class MyPatchedInt(int):
    should_equal=should_equal_def

class MyPatchedStr(str):
    should_equal=should_equal_def

import __builtin__
__builtin__.str = MyPatchedStr
__builtin__.int = MyPatchedInt

int(1).should_equal(1)
str("44").should_equal("44")

Have fun ;)

Solution 4:

You can do this, but it takes a little bit of hacking. Fortunately, there's a module now called "Forbidden Fruit" that gives you the power to patch methods of built-in types very simply. You can find it at

http://clarete.github.io/forbiddenfruit/?goback=.gde_50788_member_228887816

https://pypi.python.org/pypi/forbiddenfruit/0.1.0

With the original question example, after you write the "should_equal" function, you'd just do

from forbiddenfruit import curse
curse(int, "should_equal", should_equal)

and you're good to go! There's also a "reverse" function to remove a patched method.

Solution 5:

Python's core types are immutable by design, as other users have pointed out:

>>> int.frobnicate = lambda self: whatever()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: can't set attributes of built-in/extension type 'int'

You certainly could achieve the effect you describe by making a subclass, since user-defined types in Python are mutable by default.

>>> class MyInt(int):
...   def frobnicate(self):
...     print 'frobnicating %r' % self
... 
>>> five = MyInt(5)
>>> five.frobnicate()
frobnicating 5
>>> five + 8
13

There's no need to make the MyInt subclass public, either; one could just as well define it inline directly in the function or method that constructs the instance.

There are certainly a few situations where Python programmers who are fluent in the idiom consider this sort of subclassing the right thing to do. For instance, os.stat() returns a tuple subclass that adds named members, precisely in order to address the sort of readability concern you refer to in your example.

>>> import os
>>> st = os.stat('.')
>>> st
(16877, 34996226, 65024L, 69, 1000, 1000, 4096, 1223697425, 1223699268, 1223699268)
>>> st[6]
4096
>>> st.st_size
4096

That said, in the specific example you give, I don't believe that subclassing float in item.price (or elsewhere) would be very likely to be considered the Pythonic thing to do. I can easily imagine somebody deciding to add a price_should_equal() method to item if that were the primary use case; if one were looking for something more general, perhaps it might make more sense to use named arguments to make the intended meaning clearer, as in

should_equal(observed=item.price, expected=19.99)

or something along those lines. It's a bit verbose, but no doubt it could be improved upon. A possible advantage to such an approach over Ruby-style monkey-patching is that should_equal() could easily perform its comparison on any type, not just int or float. But perhaps I'm getting too caught up in the details of the particular example that you happened to provide.