Instantiating sub-class from super

[DL Neil]

On 16/10/19 12:38 AM, Rhodri James wrote:
> On 14/10/2019 21:55, DL Neil via Python-list wrote:
...

>> It seemed better (at the design-level) to have Man( Person ) and 
>> Woman( Person ) sub-classes to contain the pertinent attributes, 
>> source more detailed and specific questions, and collect such data; by 
>> gender.
> 
> Knowing a lot of Trans people as I do, may I gently suggest that this 
> solution will find many and varied ways of coming back to bite you?


[with more respect than the previous humor]


You are absolutely correct. The use-case was (over-)simplified, per 
list-advice.

That said, if a "trans" person has ovaries or testes (for example) then 
a non-traditional sexual identification is irrelevant - for medical 
purposes. Diseases in those areas (and now I'm a long way from a 
research questionnaire and from Python - but this is roughly how it was 
explained to me) still apply, and sadly, may in-fact be considerably 
complicated by any medical processes that may have contributed to a 
transition.

So, yes, the "label" is unimportant - except to politicians and 
statisticians, who want precise answers from vague collections of 
data... (sigh!)

FYI: This country has been leading the way, to the point where even 
asking such questions is no longer allowed under many circumstances.

Back to Python: yes, the model is considerably complicated because there 
are no 'straight lines' to divide - that, and the rather arcane 
DB-structure we've inherited (which contributed to pilot-ing the 
sub-class route) are leading us back to the idea of a 'monolithic' 
Person class* with loads of data-points/flags and 
conditional-executions, to take care of individual differences and 
meeting the (medical) objectives of the questionnaire. Perhaps one of 
the physicians will prescribe a head-ache remedy?

* without denigrating the generosity of those who helped with the OP

-- 
Regards =dn