预计阅读本页时间：-
Polymorphism in Action
To make this acquisition of inherited behavior even more striking, we can add the following code at the end of our file:
if __name__ == '__main__':
...
print('--All three--')
for object in (bob, sue, tom): # Process objects generically
object.giveRaise(.10) # Run this object's giveRaise
print(object) # Run the common __str__
广告：个人专属 VPN，独立 IP，无限流量，多机房切换，还可以屏蔽广告和恶意软件，每月最低仅 5 美元
Here’s the resulting output:
[Person: Bob Smith, 0]
[Person: Sue Jones, 100000]
Smith Jones
[Person: Sue Jones, 110000]
Jones
[Person: Tom Jones, 60000]
--All three--
[Person: Bob Smith, 0]
[Person: Sue Jones, 121000]
[Person: Tom Jones, 72000]
In the added code, object is either a Person or a Manager, and Python runs the appropriate giveRaise automatically—our original version in Person for bob and sue, and our customized version in Manager for tom. Trace the method calls yourself to see how Python selects the right giveRaise method for each object.
This is just Python’s notion of polymorphism, which we met earlier in the book, at work again—what giveRaise does depends on what you do it to. Here, it’s made all the more obvious when it selects from code we’ve written ourselves in classes. The practical effect in this code is that sue gets another 10% but tom gets another 20%, because giveRaise is dispatched based upon the object’s type. As we’ve learned, polymorphism is at the heart of Python’s flexibility. Passing any of our three objects to a function that calls a giveRaise method, for example, would have the same effect: the appropriate version would be run automatically, depending on which type of object was passed.
On the other hand, printing runs the same __str__ for all three objects, because it’s coded just once in Person. Manager both specializes and applies the code we originally wrote in Person. Although this example is small, it’s already leveraging OOP’s talent for code customization and reuse; with classes, this almost seems automatic at times.
