Is this an OK design?

[David Goodger]

urnerk at qwest.net wrote:
> ---- pv1.py ----
> 
>   class P(object):
>      def __init__(self, amap)
>          self.amap = amap
>          self.P = self.__class__ # <-- store type of instance
> 
> --- pv2.py ---
> 
>   import pv1
>   class P(pv1.P):
> 
>     def __invert__(self):
>        # newmap = inverted self.amap
>        return self.P(newmap)  # <--- class is now object attribute
...
> What I'd like to know is:  is my solution perverse or Pythonic? 
> Is there a better way?

Whenever I've had to do the same thing, I'd just say:

          return self.__class__(newmap)

Or make a specialized method, like:

      def new(self, *args):
          return self.__class__(*args)

In other words, say it directly without the indirection of a class
attribute.

Unless, of course, you want to modify the attribute for some
reason.  Even then, I'd change the name to be more
self-documenting.

-- David Goodger